6 ms·

If China was to attack Taiwan, now would be the time. The current world order is at least in part based around the notion of the US (and allies) having the mili

by lumost 8mo ago

If China was to attack Taiwan, now would be the time. The current world order is at least in part based around the notion of the US (and allies) having the military capacity to fight any plausible combination of foes at all times. That this military capacity was used in accordance to a set of rules with input from allies and partners made the system tolerable. If the US lacks the munitions to fight all of these conflicts, and is unreliable to allies or foes leads to a high likelihood of conflict.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
koolala 8mo ago
Would allies give the US munitions to stop that possible outcome?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- lumost 8mo ago
  Why give munitions to an unreliable partner? why rely on an unreliable partner for munitions? the Japan/Australia/SK-US-EU/NATO alliance depends on the US being sensible and broadly aligned with the goals of the other countries. Granted, patriot missiles are still manufactured across the alliance and I'm sure arms will be available for purchase.
tim-tday 8mo ago
Pretty sure they’ll wait about 9 months. They have a schedule after all.
CyanLite2 8mo ago
Fortunately, China just decided to fire most of their military leadership and replaced them with inexperienced, but loyal grunts.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 8mo ago
  Isn't that what the US did too?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- M95D 8mo ago
  Why "fortunately"?
- mizzao 8mo ago
  Does this make them more or less likely to attack Taiwan, then?
Ajakks 8mo ago
[flagged]
- markus_zhang 8mo ago
  Ah, such good thought to talk about nukes so lightly. Do not underestimate the number of nukes needed to obliterate a country with 1.3 billion people.
  - Ajakks 8mo ago
    Well, my comment was flagged, so apparently it wasnt taken lightly by everyone. You don't need a missile for everyone - I don't want to offend anyone but, you only have to use them in such a way that everyone else is affected. Like how in America, our energy grid is so bad and interconnected - an air blast above Kansas would render most of our electrical grid and any connected/ancillary electronics completely unusable.
- lumost 8mo ago
  All limited exchanges end in annihilation, parties are required to tit for tat the exchange and it's really easy to run out of targets when you are using nukes - forcing an escalation. If Taiwan was invaded, the only military targets for the US are in close proximity to major population centers. The response would be nukes on US Naval bases (in close proximity to US population centers). This would rapidly escalate to a full exchange. Or China would just use their nukes to achieve all military objectives in Taiwan. Neither China nor the US plan to invade each other, or engage in any non-limited conflict. There is no rational reason for either to ever use nukes.
  - Ajakks 8mo ago
    MAD is actually a myth - especially when it was invented in the 60s, its more so now, in theory, but in all practical sense - nobody can use the massive nukes, they would prolly melt the polar ice and screw the climate for sure... but, having them means something else: nobody without an equivalent number can actually engage with you. Which is why tactical nukes will be used in the future - likely by the US, Russia, or later on, maybe China. The British and French only have enough if we support them - India and Pakistan hardly have enough for each other... Essentially - if we did take out say half a city somewhere and Russia doesnt go to their "final at bat" forever, for some country that isn't Russia - nobody else will attack us directly either bc they can't destroy our capacity to entirely remove them from existing. China would want to fire back - but do you waste a billion people to make your enemy really, really angry and determined to use all of their remaining capabilities - which is more than everyone else (cept Russia), with just what is outside of the US in subs... I'm not actually joking here - trading a part of an iconic city, to be taught an unwanted lesson, is superior to losing all the skylines of all the cities and learning no more lessons ever. That modern understanding is actually entirely different than Mao originally approached an exchange - he said he wasn't worried - bc China has enough people and cities. This is the real reason America has so many - bc with our large sprawled out country and global distribution of nuclear capabilities - we will always be the last one pushing red buttons. That is all that matters in an actual nuclear war/exchange - being the last one left IS Winning. I wont explain more, bc it clearly is uncomfortable to people, but essentially, if the US and Russia were to "allow" each other to use tactical nukes (with rules, they set for each other) - like my example with Kiev (which would accomplish sooo many things - I wont elaborate further in case the Pentagon has somehow that) - with that one move, condoning "limited tactical nukes" bc they are "so weak" compared to the "real ones" - we would immediately return to a bipolar world split between the US and Russia. All those conversations about the end of NATO would immediately stop, for example.
nebula8804 8mo ago
There is so much BS on both sides of the aisle so it seems impossible to get a clear picture but didn't Iran prepare better than Venezuela in terms of deployment of Chinese radar and other security defenses? Seems like there has been no conversation whatsoever about Chinese defenses, were they bypassed again? If so, then China must be reassessing. (Again dont know whats real and whats fake anymore)
- nathanlied 8mo ago
  China is being very careful to provide enough support not to be seen as abandoning their trading partners/allies, while keeping the support at a low enough level to not get entangled in conflict or create expectations for future conflicts. They want to be able to paint this as "just business", in spite of any rhetoric they may publicly have. In some cases they'll help more in covert ways (Russia), while others they'll do the bare minimum (Venezuela). So yes, China did give (note: sell) Iran some hardware, but it's not the most cutting edge tech China has, and it's not in sufficient quantity to make much of a difference. The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower.
  - nebula8804 8mo ago
    This sounds like a cop out. The second biggest loser of Iran being invaded is China. The US already took out Venezuela and now Iran. I know China has made excellent strides in renewables but they still depend on oil to fuel their over capacitized factories. Now they have lost their number 1 and number 2 supplier. Combined with 25% youth unemployment things are looking more grim for China. If any of this tech had any value it should have done something. Now people aren't even bashing it like they did in venezuela they just seem to be accepting that it is not worth talking about. Like I said there is so much BS on both sides and well your argument isn't convincing: There is this cutting edge tech that no one has seen and no one knows anything about but just trust me China is saving it for the perfect moment. :/ >The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower. We need to take a step back and reassess: is the hardware effective against the US or is it not? If it is not, then it is no better than a paperweight. Second place finishers are not with us any longer as the victor wrote the history books. I'm starting to think maybe WW3 has already started and we are so bogged down in the day to day nonsense that many don't realize it yet.
fma 8mo ago
I think this is only true if the United States takes armaments from the Pacific theater.

by lumost 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

koolala 8mo ago

Would allies give the US munitions to stop that possible outcome?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
lumost 8mo ago
Why give munitions to an unreliable partner? why rely on an unreliable partner for munitions? the Japan/Australia/SK-US-EU/NATO alliance depends on the US being sensible and broadly aligned with the goals of the other countries. Granted, patriot missiles are still manufactured across the alliance and I'm sure arms will be available for purchase.

tim-tday 8mo ago

Pretty sure they’ll wait about 9 months. They have a schedule after all.

CyanLite2 8mo ago

Fortunately, China just decided to fire most of their military leadership and replaced them with inexperienced, but loyal grunts.

Eddy_Viscosity2 8mo ago
Isn't that what the US did too?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
M95D 8mo ago
Why "fortunately"?
mizzao 8mo ago
Does this make them more or less likely to attack Taiwan, then?

Ajakks 8mo ago

[flagged]

markus_zhang 8mo ago
Ah, such good thought to talk about nukes so lightly. Do not underestimate the number of nukes needed to obliterate a country with 1.3 billion people.
- Ajakks 8mo ago
  Well, my comment was flagged, so apparently it wasnt taken lightly by everyone. You don't need a missile for everyone - I don't want to offend anyone but, you only have to use them in such a way that everyone else is affected. Like how in America, our energy grid is so bad and interconnected - an air blast above Kansas would render most of our electrical grid and any connected/ancillary electronics completely unusable.
lumost 8mo ago
All limited exchanges end in annihilation, parties are required to tit for tat the exchange and it's really easy to run out of targets when you are using nukes - forcing an escalation. If Taiwan was invaded, the only military targets for the US are in close proximity to major population centers. The response would be nukes on US Naval bases (in close proximity to US population centers). This would rapidly escalate to a full exchange. Or China would just use their nukes to achieve all military objectives in Taiwan. Neither China nor the US plan to invade each other, or engage in any non-limited conflict. There is no rational reason for either to ever use nukes.
- Ajakks 8mo ago
  MAD is actually a myth - especially when it was invented in the 60s, its more so now, in theory, but in all practical sense - nobody can use the massive nukes, they would prolly melt the polar ice and screw the climate for sure... but, having them means something else: nobody without an equivalent number can actually engage with you. Which is why tactical nukes will be used in the future - likely by the US, Russia, or later on, maybe China. The British and French only have enough if we support them - India and Pakistan hardly have enough for each other... Essentially - if we did take out say half a city somewhere and Russia doesnt go to their "final at bat" forever, for some country that isn't Russia - nobody else will attack us directly either bc they can't destroy our capacity to entirely remove them from existing. China would want to fire back - but do you waste a billion people to make your enemy really, really angry and determined to use all of their remaining capabilities - which is more than everyone else (cept Russia), with just what is outside of the US in subs... I'm not actually joking here - trading a part of an iconic city, to be taught an unwanted lesson, is superior to losing all the skylines of all the cities and learning no more lessons ever. That modern understanding is actually entirely different than Mao originally approached an exchange - he said he wasn't worried - bc China has enough people and cities. This is the real reason America has so many - bc with our large sprawled out country and global distribution of nuclear capabilities - we will always be the last one pushing red buttons. That is all that matters in an actual nuclear war/exchange - being the last one left IS Winning. I wont explain more, bc it clearly is uncomfortable to people, but essentially, if the US and Russia were to "allow" each other to use tactical nukes (with rules, they set for each other) - like my example with Kiev (which would accomplish sooo many things - I wont elaborate further in case the Pentagon has somehow that) - with that one move, condoning "limited tactical nukes" bc they are "so weak" compared to the "real ones" - we would immediately return to a bipolar world split between the US and Russia. All those conversations about the end of NATO would immediately stop, for example.

nebula8804 8mo ago

There is so much BS on both sides of the aisle so it seems impossible to get a clear picture but didn't Iran prepare better than Venezuela in terms of deployment of Chinese radar and other security defenses? Seems like there has been no conversation whatsoever about Chinese defenses, were they bypassed again? If so, then China must be reassessing. (Again dont know whats real and whats fake anymore)

nathanlied 8mo ago
China is being very careful to provide enough support not to be seen as abandoning their trading partners/allies, while keeping the support at a low enough level to not get entangled in conflict or create expectations for future conflicts. They want to be able to paint this as "just business", in spite of any rhetoric they may publicly have. In some cases they'll help more in covert ways (Russia), while others they'll do the bare minimum (Venezuela). So yes, China did give (note: sell) Iran some hardware, but it's not the most cutting edge tech China has, and it's not in sufficient quantity to make much of a difference. The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower.
- nebula8804 8mo ago
  This sounds like a cop out. The second biggest loser of Iran being invaded is China. The US already took out Venezuela and now Iran. I know China has made excellent strides in renewables but they still depend on oil to fuel their over capacitized factories. Now they have lost their number 1 and number 2 supplier. Combined with 25% youth unemployment things are looking more grim for China. If any of this tech had any value it should have done something. Now people aren't even bashing it like they did in venezuela they just seem to be accepting that it is not worth talking about. Like I said there is so much BS on both sides and well your argument isn't convincing: There is this cutting edge tech that no one has seen and no one knows anything about but just trust me China is saving it for the perfect moment. :/ >The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower. We need to take a step back and reassess: is the hardware effective against the US or is it not? If it is not, then it is no better than a paperweight. Second place finishers are not with us any longer as the victor wrote the history books. I'm starting to think maybe WW3 has already started and we are so bogged down in the day to day nonsense that many don't realize it yet.

fma 8mo ago

I think this is only true if the United States takes armaments from the Pacific theater.