6 ms·

The U.S. military is principally an expeditionary force. It’s designed to travel far distances. Not homeland defense. The PRC is concentrated instead on its own

The U.S. military is principally an expeditionary force. It’s designed to travel far distances. Not homeland defense. The PRC is concentrated instead on its own borders. Only recently have they sought more expeditionary capabilities. The PRC is significantly safer from kinetic attacks compared to the U.S. Our military commanders recognize this and note that a conflict with the PRC would likely reach the U.S. homeland…

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would likely reach US homeland. Don't those two contradict each other?
- victorbjorklund 3y ago
  No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of: - Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine) - half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades - Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups. I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - kelipso 3y ago
        In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?
        matthewdgreen 3y ago
        If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        In a hundred years this will likely not be relevant, since the periodic elections will eventually have to go giving way to more flexible and internet-enabled mechanisms, and it's not given that mainland China will be lacking those. I'm not sure you can call yourself choosing the direction of your society if "reuniting with mainland" is the direction you are not allowed to choose.
        3y ago
  - chillwaves 3y ago
    boots on the ground in the US would be met with extremely fierce resistance.
  - nradov 3y ago
    No that's not what was meant. China has nowhere near enough amphibious lift capacity to stage a ground invasion of the US homeland. It's just impossible. But they do have a large and growing inventory of long-range conventional missiles which could be used to strike the US homeland if the US were to, let's say, intervene in a conflict over Taiwan. US cities and military facilities in Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland West Coast would be at risk.
  - screye 3y ago
    Which is a (apologies for the insult) brain-dead claim. The US is practically impossible to invade, even if it did not have a massive navy. The only ways into the US are Eastern Ocean, Bigger Western Ocean, Economically dependent southern nation and Economically dependent northern nation. Then you look at US army bases, and realize that China's nearest feasibly supply-line for such an invasion would have to be in Western Africa [1] or the Solomon Islands [2]. > US defense is weaker Even if the net-size of the US forces are smaller, the US has a significantly stronger Navy. China doesn't even come close. For all my complaining about highways, they do allow the US to mobilize land-forces to any geographical location on continental USA near instantaneously. Hell, I doubt China's ability get out of the South China Sea with American bases surrounding it in a maritime war, let alone reach another continent. [1] https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1390732407880380420/photo/1 https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/139073240788038042... [2] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20220507_CNM979.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
    - thoughtstheseus 3y ago
      That’s a red herring. Why would the PRC invade the USA? That seems ludicrous on its face. Who is claiming this? An attack (likely to be some gray zone situation) is not an invasion. The panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda.
      - screye 3y ago
        > Who is claiming this? I was replying to the grandparent comment that was claiming exactly this. > panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda It's a map of US and China's bases. It's publicly known information, I just wanted to pick a pretty infographic. Does it matter if I get the weather in Moscow from Putin, if it is trivially verifiable ?
pibechorro 3y ago
There is an obvious answer. The military needs to be mainly focused on Homeland defense, as it was intended. Being world police is stupid and wastefull. Its bankrupted us just like every empire that over extends itself (and debases its currency).
- robcohen 3y ago
  Seems non-obvious to me. The world currency is the dollar presently. We protect the trade routes around the world. Remove that protection, those trade routes will no longer be in our favor. Whoever controls them will set up tariffs to massively hurt the US and benefit themselves. Put another way, how do you think the US would fare long term if China and Russia controlled all international trade?
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > We protect the trade routes around the world. From whom exactly?
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I don’t think that a conflict would go farther afield than Okinawa before the US used nuclear weapons. I do not believe the US is willing to lose in a way that matters.

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago

I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would likely reach US homeland. Don't those two contradict each other?

victorbjorklund 3y ago
No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of: - Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine) - half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades - Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups. I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - kelipso 3y ago
      In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?
        matthewdgreen 3y ago
        If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        In a hundred years this will likely not be relevant, since the periodic elections will eventually have to go giving way to more flexible and internet-enabled mechanisms, and it's not given that mainland China will be lacking those. I'm not sure you can call yourself choosing the direction of your society if "reuniting with mainland" is the direction you are not allowed to choose.
        3y ago
- chillwaves 3y ago
  boots on the ground in the US would be met with extremely fierce resistance.
- nradov 3y ago
  No that's not what was meant. China has nowhere near enough amphibious lift capacity to stage a ground invasion of the US homeland. It's just impossible. But they do have a large and growing inventory of long-range conventional missiles which could be used to strike the US homeland if the US were to, let's say, intervene in a conflict over Taiwan. US cities and military facilities in Hawaii, Alaska, and the mainland West Coast would be at risk.
- screye 3y ago
  Which is a (apologies for the insult) brain-dead claim. The US is practically impossible to invade, even if it did not have a massive navy. The only ways into the US are Eastern Ocean, Bigger Western Ocean, Economically dependent southern nation and Economically dependent northern nation. Then you look at US army bases, and realize that China's nearest feasibly supply-line for such an invasion would have to be in Western Africa [1] or the Solomon Islands [2]. > US defense is weaker Even if the net-size of the US forces are smaller, the US has a significantly stronger Navy. China doesn't even come close. For all my complaining about highways, they do allow the US to mobilize land-forces to any geographical location on continental USA near instantaneously. Hell, I doubt China's ability get out of the South China Sea with American bases surrounding it in a maritime war, let alone reach another continent. [1] https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/1390732407880380420/photo/1 https://twitter.com/thinking_panda/status/139073240788038042... [2] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20220507_CNM979.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
  - thoughtstheseus 3y ago
    That’s a red herring. Why would the PRC invade the USA? That seems ludicrous on its face. Who is claiming this? An attack (likely to be some gray zone situation) is not an invasion. The panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda.
    - screye 3y ago
      > Who is claiming this? I was replying to the grandparent comment that was claiming exactly this. > panda Twitter account you linked to looks to be straight propaganda It's a map of US and China's bases. It's publicly known information, I just wanted to pick a pretty infographic. Does it matter if I get the weather in Moscow from Putin, if it is trivially verifiable ?

pibechorro 3y ago

There is an obvious answer. The military needs to be mainly focused on Homeland defense, as it was intended. Being world police is stupid and wastefull. Its bankrupted us just like every empire that over extends itself (and debases its currency).

robcohen 3y ago
Seems non-obvious to me. The world currency is the dollar presently. We protect the trade routes around the world. Remove that protection, those trade routes will no longer be in our favor. Whoever controls them will set up tariffs to massively hurt the US and benefit themselves. Put another way, how do you think the US would fare long term if China and Russia controlled all international trade?
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > We protect the trade routes around the world. From whom exactly?

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

I don’t think that a conflict would go farther afield than Okinawa before the US used nuclear weapons. I do not believe the US is willing to lose in a way that matters.