3 ms·

Why 2027?

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
That's the meme. It's not going to happen IRL because it doesn't look like China is rising to the bait, because Russia is still advancing in Ukraine, because American industrial production capacity is by every estimation not equal to the task, and because the Middle East is as bad a mess as it has ever been and is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. When your Navy literally can't defeat the Houthis, you know for an ironclad 100% certainty that there's zero chance they're capable of beating China -- right off the coast of China!
- XorNot 1y ago
  This is like saying the American military couldn't defeat the Iraqis. The American military could not successfully build a stable Iraqi democracy or completely suppress sectarian violence. They absolutely destroyed the Iraqi conventional military and occupied the country for 8 years though.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    Not only is China a peer with vast resources and numbers of people, it is also a nuclear power. A full scale conflict would be disastrous for us all.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      So either the war goes immediately nuclear, in which case no one wins but the US has a significant missile advantage, or it doesn't in which case China will be facing down an adversary with a 11 aircraft carriers and their support flotillas, as well as deep magazines of long range antishipping missiles and the largest submarine fleet in the world and the largest airforce in the world. China has a lot of resources, but they have not turned those into the type of resources which can fight and defeat the US military conventionally and have a serious power-projection problem compared to the logistical mobility the US military enjoys mastery of. Which again highlights the absurdity of saying "couldn't defeat the Houthis, can't defeat China" as though you're comparing apples to apples. The other absurdity is of course the supposition that anyone wants a war to be good for business: checkout how that's going for Russia's defence contractors. No: the fear of a war is good for business. An arms build up or modernization program is good for business. An actual war is ubiquitously terrible for business.
      - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
        > US has a significant missile advantage Doubt. > an adversary with a 11 aircraft carriers Didn't a couple of them literally tuck tail and run from the Houthis? Besides, three of them are scheduled for maintenance between 2027 and 2030. > the largest submarine fleet in the world Those subs are at a severe disadvantage in the very shallow waters of the South China Sea, which are riddled with all manner of sensors. > serious power-projection problem Irrelevant. Wouldn't we be fighting them over there?
      - cycliclyc 1y ago
        Just how long do you think the US would be able to deploy the full force you describe here in a world where all commerce with China ceases abruptly and Pacific ocean trade is severely disrupted?
  - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
    Even if we grant that China is anything like Iraq (it sure ain't!), that was more than 20 years ago. Last year, and not for want of trying, the US Navy sure didn't do anything to destroy the Houthi's conventional military capabilities. They're still sinking ships left and right! So much for freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas. > https://edition.cnn.com/world/middleeast/eternity-c-houthi-rebels-red-sea-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/world/middleeast/eternity-c-houthi-r... Now imagine the USN actually has to fight a war in shallow waters against a foe that's literally 10,000x better armed and equipped than the Houthis, and with a capacity for industrial production that dwarfs its own. War is a measuring rod. Before it begins, each side guesses at its own strength and the other's will. Often it guesses wrong. (In Ukraine, NATO overrated its weapons and tactics, Russia both overrated its own capabilities, and underrated Ukraine's resolve.) But if both sides know the truth beforehand, they don't fight to begin with. Thus there's literally zero chance that there's a war between the US and China in 2027, because the outcome is not really in doubt.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      What conventional military capabilities? The Houthi's aren't sinking military ships, they're sinking unarmed, unarmored freighters in a stretch of water so narrow you could use a towed artillery gun to bullseye a freighter moving through it. The problem they're facing is they can't reduce that capability to zero without starting a half-dozen other wars to deal with a logistical supply chain.
      - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
        Military capabilities: The anti-ship missiles, drones, fast attack craft, etc. that the Houthis have and continue to use offensively. > https://news.usni.org/2025/07/29/houthis-to-target-ships-in-red-sea-that-travel-to-israeli-ports-in-new-escalation-group-says https://news.usni.org/2025/07/29/houthis-to-target-ships-in-... As for "they can't reduce that capability to zero," the CFR made the same point a little while back: https://www.cfr.org/blog/houthis-have-defeated-us-navy-or-what-navy-0 https://www.cfr.org/blog/houthis-have-defeated-us-navy-or-wh... But it was turned around and reframed a little bit, where the inability of the USN to achieve anything tangible represents an absolute failure on their part. This is a more sober and credible read of the situation. If your tool doesn't work, what good is it? And if you think that the same tool is up for the job of fighting in the South China Sea, it seems to me that you ought to reassess your opinion. Expeditionary naval forces don't work very well these days. (Something that Russia also learned in the Black Sea.)
- the_sleaze_ 1y ago
  This is fundamentally wrong on many levels, including what a War is and why they happen. You actually need a balance of power to prevent an armed political conflict, so the adults in the room will maintain one.
  - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
    Too cryptic. So what is war and why does it happen? > "You actually need a balance of power" Yeah, but it has to be credible. If it's not credible, or hinges on vague wunderwaffen or failed concepts, then it only exists if both sides swallow one side's propaganda. (Or unless nukes come into play, but then you get MAD game theory and it's unwise to open that can of worms unless necessary.)
- cess11 1y ago
  They can blow up some dams and cause enormous civilian suffering. After having lost in Ukraine I expect certain states to be on the look-out for actions that will cause massive destruction that they can consider quick wins.
- grafmax 1y ago
  Unfortunately there is a chance you are underestimating the hubris of our leaders.
- throwawayoldie 1y ago
  I seem to remember a few months ago reading about wargames and/or scenario planning for a hypothetical US/China war, and the conclusion was, the US Navy gets thoroughly and quickly rekt.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    It's important to take these wargames with a grain of salt. The US knows a direct naval conflict with China won't be pretty, there's almost certainly no intention of fighting them if China decides to press their advantage. But we don't have to "beat" China, we simply have to deter or outlast their desire to capture Taiwan. There are innumerable possibilities if the US assists Taiwan, especially through the lens of hybrid warfare and not pitched battles. We have no motivation from a strategic standpoint to give China the naval war they want, so why would we?

Why 2027?

That's the meme. It's not going to happen IRL because it doesn't look like China is rising to the bait, because Russia is still advancing in Ukraine, because American industrial production capacity is by every estimation not equal to the task, and because the Middle East is as bad a mess as it has ever been and is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. When your Navy literally can't defeat the Houthis, you know for an ironclad 100% certainty that there's zero chance they're capable of beating China -- right off the coast of China!

XorNot 1y ago
This is like saying the American military couldn't defeat the Iraqis. The American military could not successfully build a stable Iraqi democracy or completely suppress sectarian violence. They absolutely destroyed the Iraqi conventional military and occupied the country for 8 years though.
- grafmax 1y ago
  Not only is China a peer with vast resources and numbers of people, it is also a nuclear power. A full scale conflict would be disastrous for us all.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    So either the war goes immediately nuclear, in which case no one wins but the US has a significant missile advantage, or it doesn't in which case China will be facing down an adversary with a 11 aircraft carriers and their support flotillas, as well as deep magazines of long range antishipping missiles and the largest submarine fleet in the world and the largest airforce in the world. China has a lot of resources, but they have not turned those into the type of resources which can fight and defeat the US military conventionally and have a serious power-projection problem compared to the logistical mobility the US military enjoys mastery of. Which again highlights the absurdity of saying "couldn't defeat the Houthis, can't defeat China" as though you're comparing apples to apples. The other absurdity is of course the supposition that anyone wants a war to be good for business: checkout how that's going for Russia's defence contractors. No: the fear of a war is good for business. An arms build up or modernization program is good for business. An actual war is ubiquitously terrible for business.
    - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
      > US has a significant missile advantage Doubt. > an adversary with a 11 aircraft carriers Didn't a couple of them literally tuck tail and run from the Houthis? Besides, three of them are scheduled for maintenance between 2027 and 2030. > the largest submarine fleet in the world Those subs are at a severe disadvantage in the very shallow waters of the South China Sea, which are riddled with all manner of sensors. > serious power-projection problem Irrelevant. Wouldn't we be fighting them over there?
    - cycliclyc 1y ago
      Just how long do you think the US would be able to deploy the full force you describe here in a world where all commerce with China ceases abruptly and Pacific ocean trade is severely disrupted?
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  Even if we grant that China is anything like Iraq (it sure ain't!), that was more than 20 years ago. Last year, and not for want of trying, the US Navy sure didn't do anything to destroy the Houthi's conventional military capabilities. They're still sinking ships left and right! So much for freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas. > https://edition.cnn.com/world/middleeast/eternity-c-houthi-rebels-red-sea-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/world/middleeast/eternity-c-houthi-r... Now imagine the USN actually has to fight a war in shallow waters against a foe that's literally 10,000x better armed and equipped than the Houthis, and with a capacity for industrial production that dwarfs its own. War is a measuring rod. Before it begins, each side guesses at its own strength and the other's will. Often it guesses wrong. (In Ukraine, NATO overrated its weapons and tactics, Russia both overrated its own capabilities, and underrated Ukraine's resolve.) But if both sides know the truth beforehand, they don't fight to begin with. Thus there's literally zero chance that there's a war between the US and China in 2027, because the outcome is not really in doubt.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    What conventional military capabilities? The Houthi's aren't sinking military ships, they're sinking unarmed, unarmored freighters in a stretch of water so narrow you could use a towed artillery gun to bullseye a freighter moving through it. The problem they're facing is they can't reduce that capability to zero without starting a half-dozen other wars to deal with a logistical supply chain.
    - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
      Military capabilities: The anti-ship missiles, drones, fast attack craft, etc. that the Houthis have and continue to use offensively. > https://news.usni.org/2025/07/29/houthis-to-target-ships-in-red-sea-that-travel-to-israeli-ports-in-new-escalation-group-says https://news.usni.org/2025/07/29/houthis-to-target-ships-in-... As for "they can't reduce that capability to zero," the CFR made the same point a little while back: https://www.cfr.org/blog/houthis-have-defeated-us-navy-or-what-navy-0 https://www.cfr.org/blog/houthis-have-defeated-us-navy-or-wh... But it was turned around and reframed a little bit, where the inability of the USN to achieve anything tangible represents an absolute failure on their part. This is a more sober and credible read of the situation. If your tool doesn't work, what good is it? And if you think that the same tool is up for the job of fighting in the South China Sea, it seems to me that you ought to reassess your opinion. Expeditionary naval forces don't work very well these days. (Something that Russia also learned in the Black Sea.)
the_sleaze_ 1y ago
This is fundamentally wrong on many levels, including what a War is and why they happen. You actually need a balance of power to prevent an armed political conflict, so the adults in the room will maintain one.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  Too cryptic. So what is war and why does it happen? > "You actually need a balance of power" Yeah, but it has to be credible. If it's not credible, or hinges on vague wunderwaffen or failed concepts, then it only exists if both sides swallow one side's propaganda. (Or unless nukes come into play, but then you get MAD game theory and it's unwise to open that can of worms unless necessary.)
cess11 1y ago
They can blow up some dams and cause enormous civilian suffering. After having lost in Ukraine I expect certain states to be on the look-out for actions that will cause massive destruction that they can consider quick wins.
grafmax 1y ago
Unfortunately there is a chance you are underestimating the hubris of our leaders.
throwawayoldie 1y ago
I seem to remember a few months ago reading about wargames and/or scenario planning for a hypothetical US/China war, and the conclusion was, the US Navy gets thoroughly and quickly rekt.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  It's important to take these wargames with a grain of salt. The US knows a direct naval conflict with China won't be pretty, there's almost certainly no intention of fighting them if China decides to press their advantage. But we don't have to "beat" China, we simply have to deter or outlast their desire to capture Taiwan. There are innumerable possibilities if the US assists Taiwan, especially through the lens of hybrid warfare and not pitched battles. We have no motivation from a strategic standpoint to give China the naval war they want, so why would we?