7 ms·

> Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? 1 option. Just destroy f

> Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? 1 option. Just destroy fixed assets, and most armour. US can do it in a few months of logistical preparations, and 1 week high intensity campaign. 2 option. Yes, but now build proper military hardpoint bases, and a proper government

wonderwonder 5y ago
During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Option 1, likely results in the government of Myanmar suddenly possessing dozens of previously unknown SAM batteries that just appeared as well as tens of thousands of troops that just materialized overnight wearing brand new Myanmar uniforms. The US loses thousands of troops and hundreds of billions in hardware. Likely evolves into a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. Option 2 results in a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. In both these options, China is just driving resources across the border. The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Very nasty, it will scare them beyond all heavens. And this is why you do it. You make enemies afraid of you, so they don't attack you, and your allies. > The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world. 1. US has just got a nuclear ally in Asia. A rather untrusting ally for now. Dispell its doubts with show of determination. 2. US military logistics ability is bigger than the rest of the world's militaries combined.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    Sorry friend, I was willing to engage with you in good natured debate but if you think that China's response will be cowering in fear then you are very much not versed in what's going on in the world, especially regarding China's capabilities and government. China is a military power very close to the US in capability. China commands and enforces absolute loyalty from its citizens, and is more than happy to turn to genocide to do so. They would have the advantage logistically as the conflict is taking place right outside their doorstep. The US appetite for war would probably fade very quickly once deaths start pouring in while the Chinese would just be forced to trudge on. A war with China does not stay in China, China is very capable of hitting the US mainland. China has a surplus of young men, the US does not. What you think would be China just cowering in fear would quickly devolve into WWIII.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      > China is a military power very close to the US in capability. False, Chinese military is numerically inferior to America, with nearly 4-fold disadvantage in combat aircraft, and already surrounded by US allies, and military assets. Ultimately, China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation.
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        Again, you are not paying attention to logistics. America has to get its military aircraft to China and then once there China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles it can deploy from its own territory. The fact that you had to say "China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation" proves the reason the US will not invade Myanmar. We are not going to get into a nuclear conflict over the conditions in another country, especially a conflict where we are seen as the aggressor. China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more, and missiles that are more than capable of delivering them anywhere in the US mainland. My point is that China will not cower in fear and do nothing if the US invades Myanmar, the fact that you think they will is mind boggling.
        baybal2 5y ago
        > China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles False, China has at most 10 long to medium range air defence regiments, most near its capital. For everything else, China's SAMs are outranged even by glide bombs. > China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more That's obviously not enough to blunt even a quarter of US military potential, even if they have many times the number of missiles, or can launch them all in a surprise attack.
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        Friend, lets assume everything you said is correct. Is your advice really that the US risk absorbing 300+ nuclear missiles to send a message on the treatment of people in Myanmar? It defies logic and is very much removed from both reality and the will of the US population.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    That's how you gift PRC a firm client state with naval base and infra that circumvents Malacca and mitigates Andaman & Nicobar. US can only maximize logistics with forward staging, which is still tiny compared to Myanmar / PRC land routes, who can support Tatmadaw indefinitely, with little green men if need be. Regardless, unlikely anyone in the region will allow it, least of all India, whose already dealing with border instability and weakening security environment due to western bloc sanctioning Tatmadaw, ruining India's Act East strategy. PRC supported/loyal Tatmadaw is nightmare scenario for India. Also SKorea, Japan, Singapore - basically anyone that's remotely US friendly wants to protect their Myanmar investments, as far as I know, none of them are even on the sanction train. At most you'll have US sorting out of CSGs, close to SLOC choke points, scaring everyone in ASEAN and making mockery of US's PRC containment propaganda, while PRC takes opportunity to gather intelligence and maybe give Myanmar military new PRC military platforms to test in real world scenarios. Which could actually go either way.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      > Also SKorea, Japan, Singapore - basically anyone that's remotely US friendly If that treacherous trio wasn't rooting for China, and not spending billions on their factories in China, the talk would be entirely different. It's in US best interest to keep its allies in line. The worst thing they can do is really to die on US, by failing to resist China. And I think, this is even more important now that getting Modi/India on board. I bet, in a decade or so, China will be back into a state of North Korea, except with skyscrapers, if the US will do so. US can't keep extending the security guarantee to Korea, Japan, and Taiwan with them putting money into China. It's a backstabbing.
      - dirtyid 5y ago
        >keep its allies in line With that kind of characterization then label US "allies" for what they are, satraps. Which while the trio are somewhere on the continuum, they still have autonomy to realize US security commitment is only worthwhile if it ensures holistic security. Plunging entire region into war, potentially another forever one isn't in their security interest. At the end of the day security guarantee is a different arrangement than committed alliance, especially to contain PRC in their own backyard at all costs. Security partners are not allies who are obligated to come to US defense or bleed for US interests after all. That's not the kind of commitment US can twist arm for buy in. India/Modi doesn't seem very on board either. Ultimately, Jaishankar sees US/west as hegemon of yesterday and PRC/India collaboration as essential to Asian Century. Previously sanctioned Modi knows how fickle west can be, hasn't bought in outside of hedging. Certainly not enough to provide basing for US considering their history. >I bet, in a decade or so, China will be back into a state of North Korea, except with skyscrapers if the US will do so. US probably could do so, but the problem even NK emerging from rubble retained enough expertise to now have a nuclear program that credibly threatens US. But they're simply too small bargain for anything better. PRC on the other hand is large and capable enough to negotiate/fight for better, and could feasibly turn US (and satraps) into North Korea as well. IMO, short of utter calamity, PRC is simply too big to acquiesce to US foreign policy indefinitely and is in a position to at least make sure US suffers decline as much if not more.
colinmhayes 5y ago
The genocide has popular support. They don't need any weapons at all to carry out this genocide since it's the peoples wish. If you think setting up puppet government is a path to success you haven't been paying attention to the last 80 years of us history.
wayoutthere 5y ago
The amount of hubris involved here is staggering — and exactly why the neocons failed at their goals of reshaping the Middle East. Our idea of a “proper government” may not align with the local population. This was certainly the case in Afghanistan; while yes, the Taliban are bad dudes with really regressive ideas about women, the country largely does support the Taliban for reasons that are missed by outside observers. This is inconvenient for the US, but as a key bottleneck on the Silk Road, Afghanistan has essentially always been at war and some version of the Taliban have always defended the country. Their history is romanticized locally. We didn’t really grok that when we went in; and we were absolutely shocked when the locals basically said “you guys will leave eventually and we will have to deal with the Taliban, so we can’t piss them off because we need them for the next invasion”. Whatever “proper government” we build will be made up of the unsavory characters we leave behind when we exit.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > the country largely does support the Taliban. It did not support Taliban. It has done so after 2 decades of Karzai, Ghani, and complete incompetence of US at building a political system, and the government from scam artists, and then doing god knows what with them. Just like in Iraq.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    If we did such a bad job in Afghanistan and Iraq why do you think the US would do a better job in Myanmar?
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    We tried to find other people. Anyone with internal support was either too religious or too communist for our tastes, so we picked Karzai and his friends in the opium trade over anyone with actual ideological support (Karzai had tepid support from the opium farmers since he was their buyer, which was good enough for the US government). If you think things would be any different in Myanmar — home of the golden triangle — you haven’t been paying attention to the lessons of the last 20 years.
dekhn 5y ago
seems like we've tried this a number of times since WWII and haven't really managed to ever pull it off in the long run. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

wonderwonder 5y ago

During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Option 1, likely results in the government of Myanmar suddenly possessing dozens of previously unknown SAM batteries that just appeared as well as tens of thousands of troops that just materialized overnight wearing brand new Myanmar uniforms. The US loses thousands of troops and hundreds of billions in hardware. Likely evolves into a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. Option 2 results in a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. In both these options, China is just driving resources across the border. The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world.

baybal2 5y ago
> During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Very nasty, it will scare them beyond all heavens. And this is why you do it. You make enemies afraid of you, so they don't attack you, and your allies. > The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world. 1. US has just got a nuclear ally in Asia. A rather untrusting ally for now. Dispell its doubts with show of determination. 2. US military logistics ability is bigger than the rest of the world's militaries combined.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Sorry friend, I was willing to engage with you in good natured debate but if you think that China's response will be cowering in fear then you are very much not versed in what's going on in the world, especially regarding China's capabilities and government. China is a military power very close to the US in capability. China commands and enforces absolute loyalty from its citizens, and is more than happy to turn to genocide to do so. They would have the advantage logistically as the conflict is taking place right outside their doorstep. The US appetite for war would probably fade very quickly once deaths start pouring in while the Chinese would just be forced to trudge on. A war with China does not stay in China, China is very capable of hitting the US mainland. China has a surplus of young men, the US does not. What you think would be China just cowering in fear would quickly devolve into WWIII.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > China is a military power very close to the US in capability. False, Chinese military is numerically inferior to America, with nearly 4-fold disadvantage in combat aircraft, and already surrounded by US allies, and military assets. Ultimately, China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      Again, you are not paying attention to logistics. America has to get its military aircraft to China and then once there China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles it can deploy from its own territory. The fact that you had to say "China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation" proves the reason the US will not invade Myanmar. We are not going to get into a nuclear conflict over the conditions in another country, especially a conflict where we are seen as the aggressor. China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more, and missiles that are more than capable of delivering them anywhere in the US mainland. My point is that China will not cower in fear and do nothing if the US invades Myanmar, the fact that you think they will is mind boggling.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        > China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles False, China has at most 10 long to medium range air defence regiments, most near its capital. For everything else, China's SAMs are outranged even by glide bombs. > China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more That's obviously not enough to blunt even a quarter of US military potential, even if they have many times the number of missiles, or can launch them all in a surprise attack.
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        Friend, lets assume everything you said is correct. Is your advice really that the US risk absorbing 300+ nuclear missiles to send a message on the treatment of people in Myanmar? It defies logic and is very much removed from both reality and the will of the US population.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  That's how you gift PRC a firm client state with naval base and infra that circumvents Malacca and mitigates Andaman & Nicobar. US can only maximize logistics with forward staging, which is still tiny compared to Myanmar / PRC land routes, who can support Tatmadaw indefinitely, with little green men if need be. Regardless, unlikely anyone in the region will allow it, least of all India, whose already dealing with border instability and weakening security environment due to western bloc sanctioning Tatmadaw, ruining India's Act East strategy. PRC supported/loyal Tatmadaw is nightmare scenario for India. Also SKorea, Japan, Singapore - basically anyone that's remotely US friendly wants to protect their Myanmar investments, as far as I know, none of them are even on the sanction train. At most you'll have US sorting out of CSGs, close to SLOC choke points, scaring everyone in ASEAN and making mockery of US's PRC containment propaganda, while PRC takes opportunity to gather intelligence and maybe give Myanmar military new PRC military platforms to test in real world scenarios. Which could actually go either way.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Also SKorea, Japan, Singapore - basically anyone that's remotely US friendly If that treacherous trio wasn't rooting for China, and not spending billions on their factories in China, the talk would be entirely different. It's in US best interest to keep its allies in line. The worst thing they can do is really to die on US, by failing to resist China. And I think, this is even more important now that getting Modi/India on board. I bet, in a decade or so, China will be back into a state of North Korea, except with skyscrapers, if the US will do so. US can't keep extending the security guarantee to Korea, Japan, and Taiwan with them putting money into China. It's a backstabbing.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      >keep its allies in line With that kind of characterization then label US "allies" for what they are, satraps. Which while the trio are somewhere on the continuum, they still have autonomy to realize US security commitment is only worthwhile if it ensures holistic security. Plunging entire region into war, potentially another forever one isn't in their security interest. At the end of the day security guarantee is a different arrangement than committed alliance, especially to contain PRC in their own backyard at all costs. Security partners are not allies who are obligated to come to US defense or bleed for US interests after all. That's not the kind of commitment US can twist arm for buy in. India/Modi doesn't seem very on board either. Ultimately, Jaishankar sees US/west as hegemon of yesterday and PRC/India collaboration as essential to Asian Century. Previously sanctioned Modi knows how fickle west can be, hasn't bought in outside of hedging. Certainly not enough to provide basing for US considering their history. >I bet, in a decade or so, China will be back into a state of North Korea, except with skyscrapers if the US will do so. US probably could do so, but the problem even NK emerging from rubble retained enough expertise to now have a nuclear program that credibly threatens US. But they're simply too small bargain for anything better. PRC on the other hand is large and capable enough to negotiate/fight for better, and could feasibly turn US (and satraps) into North Korea as well. IMO, short of utter calamity, PRC is simply too big to acquiesce to US foreign policy indefinitely and is in a position to at least make sure US suffers decline as much if not more.

colinmhayes 5y ago

The genocide has popular support. They don't need any weapons at all to carry out this genocide since it's the peoples wish. If you think setting up puppet government is a path to success you haven't been paying attention to the last 80 years of us history.

wayoutthere 5y ago

The amount of hubris involved here is staggering — and exactly why the neocons failed at their goals of reshaping the Middle East. Our idea of a “proper government” may not align with the local population. This was certainly the case in Afghanistan; while yes, the Taliban are bad dudes with really regressive ideas about women, the country largely does support the Taliban for reasons that are missed by outside observers. This is inconvenient for the US, but as a key bottleneck on the Silk Road, Afghanistan has essentially always been at war and some version of the Taliban have always defended the country. Their history is romanticized locally. We didn’t really grok that when we went in; and we were absolutely shocked when the locals basically said “you guys will leave eventually and we will have to deal with the Taliban, so we can’t piss them off because we need them for the next invasion”. Whatever “proper government” we build will be made up of the unsavory characters we leave behind when we exit.

baybal2 5y ago
> the country largely does support the Taliban. It did not support Taliban. It has done so after 2 decades of Karzai, Ghani, and complete incompetence of US at building a political system, and the government from scam artists, and then doing god knows what with them. Just like in Iraq.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  If we did such a bad job in Afghanistan and Iraq why do you think the US would do a better job in Myanmar?
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  We tried to find other people. Anyone with internal support was either too religious or too communist for our tastes, so we picked Karzai and his friends in the opium trade over anyone with actual ideological support (Karzai had tepid support from the opium farmers since he was their buyer, which was good enough for the US government). If you think things would be any different in Myanmar — home of the golden triangle — you haven’t been paying attention to the lessons of the last 20 years.

dekhn 5y ago

seems like we've tried this a number of times since WWII and haven't really managed to ever pull it off in the long run. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.