6 ms·

Yes. One scary fact that I learned is that, in war games between China and the USA, China almost always wins due to superior production capacity. Those $100B

Yes. One scary fact that I learned is that, in war games between China and the USA, China almost always wins due to superior production capacity. Those $100B American battle carriers and $40MM advanced fighter jets can be taken out by $50,000 rockets/missiles produced at a rate of hundreds or thousands per day.

huge87 5y ago
This is in line with my intuitions; do you have any sources so I can read more?
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Sure! https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-07-27/US-China-military-war-game-hyten-2326077.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-07-27/US-China-mili...
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    That doesn't support your core thesis that the US will lose a protracted war and that mass producing missiles is going to actually led to planes being destroyed. That's not how that works.
- NotSammyHagar 5y ago
  Notice this resembles somewhat (in reverse) the WW2 situation with high quality German tanks and Japanese Zeros etc and the us making many more tanks and planes compared to the Germans and Japanese. But we are on the other side of that now.
alisonkisk 5y ago
Isn't the reverse also true?
- lallysingh 5y ago
  Yup, but that leaves you at a draw for existing assets and you depend on production capacity after that.
dylan604 5y ago
How many tomahawks does it take to destory these factories?
- mywittyname 5y ago
  So, apparently the best opening salvo is to take out USA comms satellites and that essentially cripples American offensive capabilities. Modern tomahawks are heavily reliant on comms networks to hit long-range ground targets. Plus, any destroyer launching these at targets deep in Chinese territory will be within range of Chinese missiles. And, as we saw in Syria, Russian air defense systems are pretty effective against Tomahawks, and we should expect Chinese systems to be at least as effective.
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    >So, apparently the best opening salvo is to take out USA comms satellites and that essentially cripples American offensive capabilities. Modern tomahawks are heavily reliant on comms networks to hit long-range ground targets. No they aren't. They were designed with the assumption that GPS wouldn't be available and instead will rely on terrain tracking. >Plus, any destroyer launching these at targets deep in Chinese territory will be within range of Chinese missiles. And, as we saw in Syria, Russian air defense systems are pretty effective against Tomahawks, and we should expect Chinese systems to be at least as effective. What are you talking about? We had satellite imagery with holes in the ground that disproved the Russian claims that they shot down most of it. Nothing you said is factual.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      I can't decide if some of these scaremongering stories are from the military industrial complex to convince more funding into new things, or just anti-propaganda to give pause to rushing into new conflicts.
      - onepointsixC 5y ago
        It's neither. The US is in an incredibly bad position right now because of three decades of under investment. After closing too many public yards after the cold war now the USN is barely able to keep up with regular maintenance during peace time of it's vessel's, let alone during a war. The average age of most American vessels is greater than that of their sailors. All while they're asked to face down the PLAN which now outnumbers them and is newer.
starfallg 5y ago
The issue is that China needs energy and other natural resources to sustain production which the US and allies can effectively blockade. It always puzzles me why China is so antagonistic with its neighbours. Indochina is very difficult to invade, and the whole South China Seas situation means that China has no blue ocean access into the Pacific. In a global war, the only reliable lifeline into China is through Russia.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  That's why the Chinese are so keen on taking over Taiwan as it will give them that access. The core theory that the PLA repeats is that they could overwhelm US assets in the region and quickly crush Taiwan in hopes of forcing the US to agree to a cease fire and peace deal.
  - ak217 5y ago
    How does Taiwan block mainland blue water access - any more so than Okinawa?
    - starfallg 5y ago
      China has a plausible pretense to invade Taiwan. Okinawa? Not so much.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > It always puzzles me why China is so antagonistic with its neighbours. > The issue is that China needs energy and other natural resources to sustain production which the US and allies can effectively blockade. You just answered your own question. They are so hostile, and aggressive exactly because of that immense insecurity, and fear. It's the mental model you pickup growing in any red country: you never acknowledge your weaknesses, lest you want them being instantaneously exploited. On other hand, you feign a polar opposite. It's everywhere in China: — Far from rich people in small towns buying fake Ferraris — Dumb companies hiring fake "big name foreign executives" to mumbo jumbo their plans to investors — "Advance to retreat" tactic — Chinese businessmen hiring a service of "fake thugs" and tatooing themselves to appear "tough mafia men" to scare off actual mafias
onepointsixC 5y ago
This is just wrong. The US loses many war-games against China in the short term as China has local numerical superiority of weapons. US armed forces are spread all around the world while almost all of the PLA is near mainland China. In the opening salvos of a Taiwan conflict China would flatten US bases in the region which would be devastating. But long term China is effectively an Island. Its geography means that it imports nearly everything it needs by Sea. It imports 10 Million barrels of oil a day. It is not food secure. It imports nearly all of the raw materials it needs. While the PLAN could dominate their near shore, they cannot escort super tankers from the Middle East all the way back to China. The USN has had a carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf for decades. The missile argument is also just nonsense.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Explain how a war between nuclear superpowers ends with anyone winning?
- baybal2 5y ago
  You have 1 superpower, and 2 upcoming challengers. US has enough nuclear munitions to outright defeat 1 equal superpower in a first strike scenario.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > US has enough nuclear munitions to outright defeat 1 equal superpower in a first strike scenario. I wouldn't call half the population of the US dying in 30 minutes, and most of the other half over the next 30 days to be much of a 'victory', and I don't want the DoD to even consider employing anyone who would.
jollybean 5y ago
It's definitely not true today in 2010 because auto plants in 2021 cannot be 're-tooled' to make tanks. Also, US China conflict depends on entirely 'where' and 'over what' and what each nation is holding up it's sleeve. China does not have $50K rockets that it can use to down 'reasonably stealthy fighters' and as we have seen before, tactics combined with good tech gives overwhelming odds. For example, if (big 'if' but entirely plausible) the US can maintain air superiority in a particular region ... then it will basically maul whatever is before it. As just one example. China is building 100 subs that are a pretty big threat to any navy ... but we also don't know about advanced US tech that may render them completely moot. If there is no huge leverage by one side, it happens on land, and over a long time ... the then 'home team' will win.
- sonthonax 5y ago
  Apparently (and I don’t really have hard sources for this since it’s embarrassing for NATO), in big naval exercises it’s not unusual for run of the mill diesel submarines to penetrate the defensive ring around a US carrier group. Stealth is a lot easier in water than it is in the air.

huge87 5y ago

This is in line with my intuitions; do you have any sources so I can read more?

mywittyname 5y ago
Sure! https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-07-27/US-China-military-war-game-hyten-2326077.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-07-27/US-China-mili...
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  That doesn't support your core thesis that the US will lose a protracted war and that mass producing missiles is going to actually led to planes being destroyed. That's not how that works.
NotSammyHagar 5y ago
Notice this resembles somewhat (in reverse) the WW2 situation with high quality German tanks and Japanese Zeros etc and the us making many more tanks and planes compared to the Germans and Japanese. But we are on the other side of that now.

alisonkisk 5y ago

Isn't the reverse also true?

lallysingh 5y ago
Yup, but that leaves you at a draw for existing assets and you depend on production capacity after that.

dylan604 5y ago

How many tomahawks does it take to destory these factories?

mywittyname 5y ago
So, apparently the best opening salvo is to take out USA comms satellites and that essentially cripples American offensive capabilities. Modern tomahawks are heavily reliant on comms networks to hit long-range ground targets. Plus, any destroyer launching these at targets deep in Chinese territory will be within range of Chinese missiles. And, as we saw in Syria, Russian air defense systems are pretty effective against Tomahawks, and we should expect Chinese systems to be at least as effective.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  >So, apparently the best opening salvo is to take out USA comms satellites and that essentially cripples American offensive capabilities. Modern tomahawks are heavily reliant on comms networks to hit long-range ground targets. No they aren't. They were designed with the assumption that GPS wouldn't be available and instead will rely on terrain tracking. >Plus, any destroyer launching these at targets deep in Chinese territory will be within range of Chinese missiles. And, as we saw in Syria, Russian air defense systems are pretty effective against Tomahawks, and we should expect Chinese systems to be at least as effective. What are you talking about? We had satellite imagery with holes in the ground that disproved the Russian claims that they shot down most of it. Nothing you said is factual.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I can't decide if some of these scaremongering stories are from the military industrial complex to convince more funding into new things, or just anti-propaganda to give pause to rushing into new conflicts.
    - onepointsixC 5y ago
      It's neither. The US is in an incredibly bad position right now because of three decades of under investment. After closing too many public yards after the cold war now the USN is barely able to keep up with regular maintenance during peace time of it's vessel's, let alone during a war. The average age of most American vessels is greater than that of their sailors. All while they're asked to face down the PLAN which now outnumbers them and is newer.

starfallg 5y ago

The issue is that China needs energy and other natural resources to sustain production which the US and allies can effectively blockade. It always puzzles me why China is so antagonistic with its neighbours. Indochina is very difficult to invade, and the whole South China Seas situation means that China has no blue ocean access into the Pacific. In a global war, the only reliable lifeline into China is through Russia.

onepointsixC 5y ago
That's why the Chinese are so keen on taking over Taiwan as it will give them that access. The core theory that the PLA repeats is that they could overwhelm US assets in the region and quickly crush Taiwan in hopes of forcing the US to agree to a cease fire and peace deal.
- ak217 5y ago
  How does Taiwan block mainland blue water access - any more so than Okinawa?
  - starfallg 5y ago
    China has a plausible pretense to invade Taiwan. Okinawa? Not so much.
baybal2 5y ago
> It always puzzles me why China is so antagonistic with its neighbours. > The issue is that China needs energy and other natural resources to sustain production which the US and allies can effectively blockade. You just answered your own question. They are so hostile, and aggressive exactly because of that immense insecurity, and fear. It's the mental model you pickup growing in any red country: you never acknowledge your weaknesses, lest you want them being instantaneously exploited. On other hand, you feign a polar opposite. It's everywhere in China: — Far from rich people in small towns buying fake Ferraris — Dumb companies hiring fake "big name foreign executives" to mumbo jumbo their plans to investors — "Advance to retreat" tactic — Chinese businessmen hiring a service of "fake thugs" and tatooing themselves to appear "tough mafia men" to scare off actual mafias

onepointsixC 5y ago

This is just wrong. The US loses many war-games against China in the short term as China has local numerical superiority of weapons. US armed forces are spread all around the world while almost all of the PLA is near mainland China. In the opening salvos of a Taiwan conflict China would flatten US bases in the region which would be devastating. But long term China is effectively an Island. Its geography means that it imports nearly everything it needs by Sea. It imports 10 Million barrels of oil a day. It is not food secure. It imports nearly all of the raw materials it needs. While the PLAN could dominate their near shore, they cannot escort super tankers from the Middle East all the way back to China. The USN has had a carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf for decades. The missile argument is also just nonsense.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

Explain how a war between nuclear superpowers ends with anyone winning?

baybal2 5y ago
You have 1 superpower, and 2 upcoming challengers. US has enough nuclear munitions to outright defeat 1 equal superpower in a first strike scenario.
- vkou 5y ago
  > US has enough nuclear munitions to outright defeat 1 equal superpower in a first strike scenario. I wouldn't call half the population of the US dying in 30 minutes, and most of the other half over the next 30 days to be much of a 'victory', and I don't want the DoD to even consider employing anyone who would.

jollybean 5y ago

It's definitely not true today in 2010 because auto plants in 2021 cannot be 're-tooled' to make tanks. Also, US China conflict depends on entirely 'where' and 'over what' and what each nation is holding up it's sleeve. China does not have $50K rockets that it can use to down 'reasonably stealthy fighters' and as we have seen before, tactics combined with good tech gives overwhelming odds. For example, if (big 'if' but entirely plausible) the US can maintain air superiority in a particular region ... then it will basically maul whatever is before it. As just one example. China is building 100 subs that are a pretty big threat to any navy ... but we also don't know about advanced US tech that may render them completely moot. If there is no huge leverage by one side, it happens on land, and over a long time ... the then 'home team' will win.

sonthonax 5y ago
Apparently (and I don’t really have hard sources for this since it’s embarrassing for NATO), in big naval exercises it’s not unusual for run of the mill diesel submarines to penetrate the defensive ring around a US carrier group. Stealth is a lot easier in water than it is in the air.