3 ms·

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like C

by phil21 2y ago

> It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. I don't think it's unclear at all. It's uncomfortable to call out an obvious truth: We couldn't even compare. The only hope we have is basically economic mutually assured destruction. If it comes to a hot war, it better be over (without going nuclear) within weeks or at most single digit months or it's more or less over. At least from where I'm standing. It's unclear if the US could even get production ramped up on the scale of a decade. We simply don't have the people to train the people we need. Much less the people with the skills to do the thing.

throwup238 2y ago
> If it comes to a hot war, it better be over (without going nuclear) within weeks or at most single digit months or it's more or less over. At least from where I'm standing. Why? There is essentially zero chance that China can mount an invasion of the mainland US or even strike at its heartland enough to disrupt an industrial ramp up, even if it takes a decade (which it won't). The US can literally wait out anyone except Canada and Mexico (which... lol) by defending its coasts, with plenty of domestic natural resources - including agriculture, metals, and oil - to supply not just its military but the entire civilian population.
- bruce511 2y ago
  There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. It's not about "home country". The US doesn't need carrier groups to defend home country. It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely make a token response, then fade away. Places where the US has enjoyed power (like the South China Sea) might be harder to protect. Does the US have the stomach for wars in Taiwan, Japan or Australia?
  - throwup238 2y ago
    > There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. Agreed > It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two. Assuming they all get destroyed by hypersonic missiles within the first few months, the US still has military bases all over the world. As far as I know, China has zero military presence in the Western hemisphere except some surveillance balloons. China may have a short term advantage in production and cost but the US has the advantage in every other area of logistics relevant to a military. > Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely make a token response, then fade away. Places where the US has enjoyed power (like the South China Sea) might be harder to protect. Absolutely but it'd be a pyrrhic victory worth little except as domestic propaganda. If the US does help defend Taiwan, the invading Chinese fleet will likely be massacred. There's little room to hide in the 80 mile wide Taiwan strait against modern anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons. China's only real advantage will likely be air power, which doesn't win wars without lots of boots on the ground. > Does the US have the stomach for wars in Taiwan, Japan or Australia? I'm not sure about Taiwan, but I don't think we'd let Japan or Australia slip into war without assistance. (but what do I know? :-))
    - bluGill 2y ago
      > China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two Today. China is clearly building up their ability. In a few years the situation will look different which is the real worry. Also China may not need to be as big - China isn't patrolling the ocean like the US and so it is their 2 carrier groups near Taiwan against whatever the US can afford to send
    - kragen 2y ago
      destroying taiwan would permanently cripple the supply chain for the us, japanese, and australian military. in iraq and armenia we saw what happens when a conventional industrial-age military banking on tonnage of explosives faces off against one with precision-guided weaponry, and since your comment we've seen it again in lebanon circumstantial evidence suggests that, like the usa, china has extensive military presence in western hemisphere telephony and networking equipment
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ruthmarx 2y ago
> It's uncomfortable to call out an obvious truth: We couldn't even compare. Funny, I don't see China as having any real chance in a hypothetical war. Numbers aren't everything.

by phil21 2y ago

throwup238 2y ago

> If it comes to a hot war, it better be over (without going nuclear) within weeks or at most single digit months or it's more or less over. At least from where I'm standing. Why? There is essentially zero chance that China can mount an invasion of the mainland US or even strike at its heartland enough to disrupt an industrial ramp up, even if it takes a decade (which it won't). The US can literally wait out anyone except Canada and Mexico (which... lol) by defending its coasts, with plenty of domestic natural resources - including agriculture, metals, and oil - to supply not just its military but the entire civilian population.

bruce511 2y ago
There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. It's not about "home country". The US doesn't need carrier groups to defend home country. It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely make a token response, then fade away. Places where the US has enjoyed power (like the South China Sea) might be harder to protect. Does the US have the stomach for wars in Taiwan, Japan or Australia?
- throwup238 2y ago
  > There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. Agreed > It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two. Assuming they all get destroyed by hypersonic missiles within the first few months, the US still has military bases all over the world. As far as I know, China has zero military presence in the Western hemisphere except some surveillance balloons. China may have a short term advantage in production and cost but the US has the advantage in every other area of logistics relevant to a military. > Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely make a token response, then fade away. Places where the US has enjoyed power (like the South China Sea) might be harder to protect. Absolutely but it'd be a pyrrhic victory worth little except as domestic propaganda. If the US does help defend Taiwan, the invading Chinese fleet will likely be massacred. There's little room to hide in the 80 mile wide Taiwan strait against modern anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons. China's only real advantage will likely be air power, which doesn't win wars without lots of boots on the ground. > Does the US have the stomach for wars in Taiwan, Japan or Australia? I'm not sure about Taiwan, but I don't think we'd let Japan or Australia slip into war without assistance. (but what do I know? :-))
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > China can barely project power in its own backyard while the US has nearly a century of experience projecting around the world, with eleven carrier groups to China's two Today. China is clearly building up their ability. In a few years the situation will look different which is the real worry. Also China may not need to be as big - China isn't patrolling the ocean like the US and so it is their 2 carrier groups near Taiwan against whatever the US can afford to send
  - kragen 2y ago
    destroying taiwan would permanently cripple the supply chain for the us, japanese, and australian military. in iraq and armenia we saw what happens when a conventional industrial-age military banking on tonnage of explosives faces off against one with precision-guided weaponry, and since your comment we've seen it again in lebanon circumstantial evidence suggests that, like the usa, china has extensive military presence in western hemisphere telephony and networking equipment
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ruthmarx 2y ago

> It's uncomfortable to call out an obvious truth: We couldn't even compare. Funny, I don't see China as having any real chance in a hypothetical war. Numbers aren't everything.