| ▲ | chmod775 6 hours ago |
| If they can exhaust all their firepower in a couple weeks fighting Iran, China would have no reason to feel threatened in the first place. The reality is that fighting China would be a proper all-out war, not whatever this spitting match with Iran is. |
|
| ▲ | _heimdall 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The reality is that fighting any country with a decent military has to be all-out war. We should have plenty of precision missiles left today because they should have been used only to clear the way for runs with "dumb" bombs. A war with China would be the same, it can never be fought from a distance with primarily $1m+ precision surface to surface missiles. Of course I only mean if the war was necessary to fight at all, I don't believe it was. |
| |
| ▲ | ndiddy an hour ago | parent [-] | | > We should have plenty of precision missiles left today because they should have been used only to clear the way for runs with "dumb" bombs. That's what the US tried to do. The problem is that they were unable to degrade the Iranian missile systems enough that they could drop gravity bombs with impunity. This also means that they had to pull the aircraft that they would use to do bombing runs back to bases in Jordan and Israel because anything on the tarmac in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE is very vulnerable to Iranian drone and missile strikes. All of this means that they're forcing the US to choose between pulling out of the region or accepting losses of personnel and airframes (that likely cannot be replaced in a timely manner) at a level that the post-Vietnam US military has never had to face. I suspect an all-out war between the US and China would go the same way as this one, if not worse. The US military in its modern form has focused on procuring very complex, advanced, and featureful weapons in tiny numbers. The problem is that this means that the US is incapable of fighting a sustained campaign against an adversary that can withstand attacks from American weapons and has a higher production capacity. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The problem is production capacity. The US has gutted the lower-value parts of its supply chains, closed refineries and foundries left and right, and is thoroughly unequipped to even produce cheap weapons at the rate required to support a war. The number of airplanes built in the US during WWII is greater than all the airplanes NOT in that category. Obviously we can't maintain that level of industry during peacetime, but we've fallen so far below that level and are so low on weapons that if another major war starts we won't even be able to rapidly scale up. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tim333 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >fighting China would be a proper all-out war I figure it would probably be like the US backing Ukraine's defense against Russia but backing Taiwan's defense against China. It would probably be quite hard for China to take Taiwan. There's a lot of sea in between and you can see how well Russia's navy has done against Ukraine's drones and missiles. |
|
| ▲ | Paradigma11 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But there wouldn't be a Chinese navy left which would give Taiwan and it's allies some breathing room. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | notaigenerated 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There won't ever be an "all out war" of nuclear states with each other. Only via proxies. |
| |
| ▲ | chmod775 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course there can be - likely with a gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose. It's just going to be your typical meatgrinder and attrition warfare. | | |
| ▲ | dualvariable 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, arguably the war in Ukraine is teaching everyone who is listening that nobody is willing to be the first to use nukes and destroy the planet, which means that nuclear powers can actually fight wars--which is incredibly dangerous, of course. | |
| ▲ | FpUser 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >"gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose." So we'll just grind each other into a halt? And what is the end state? What a BS. | | |
| |
| ▲ | bombcar 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They called World War I “the Great War” because they couldn’t conceive of a sequel. Never say never. | |
| ▲ | peyton 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could fight conventionally over logistics chokepoints. China’s not going to lob nukes just because their oil’s dried up. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | analognoise 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China imports food and has stressed or extremely stressed fresh water reserves. You take out the method they keep alive hundreds of millions of citizens, you think they won’t launch a nuke? Although for all the strategic thinking we’ve seen out of the “department of war” (that offers gender affirming testosterone shots and then runs out of missiles), I wouldn’t be shocked if you worked at the Pentagon, hahahaha. |
| |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Until there is. We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb. But the reality is that throughout history most leaders have been irrational. My country (America) is behaving increasingly irrationally. I've been hearing fringe conservatives calling for nuking the middle east since the early 2000s, but the rot has spread and became deeply religious. Now I hear talk of the end times from the most powerful people in the country, actively building bunkers. Groups of Republicans openly talking about the US being allowed to take whatever we want from anyone we want through war (Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, Canada). Almost all of our leadership has been replaced in every branch of government. SCOTUS is clearly compromised and bought. The legislative may as well be dead. Almost all executive agencies have been purged, what remains have had their heads swapped with sycophants. Something like half of the military generals have been turned over. The DoD was renamed to the DoW with cheers, as an alcoholic prison guard was put in charge and has started touting hypermacho religious warrior catchphrases and openly advocating for war crimes. The other day we testimony from judges before legislature who refused to say if Presidents can run for three terms or that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Under oath, just simply refused. And that's before getting into how the President of the United States started a war to distract from his involvement in the highest profile sex trafficking ring in human history, and has continued to use his position to perform insider trading on oil prices repeatedly for weeks. If you said any of this would be happening in 2005, I would have laughed at how "that would never happen in the US". And now it's just... reality. Like Russia. And it seems to have no end in sight. So what actually happens if Trump gets so deranged he hits the red button? And if not him, who will the loonies pick tomorrow - someone who actually believes in "the cause", who doesn't understand it's a grift? And what are the external long term consequences of Trump's actions in countries like Iran and Venezuela and Ukraine? The US is not to be trusted anymore, every country has a clear signal to build their own nuclear arsenal ASAP. We have a river of blood behind us, so are we just expecting to get lucky that no one in Iran, for instance, who gets to a position of power leverages an irrational hate for the US and just... Does it in a religious or hate-driven Armageddon? | | |
| ▲ | tharmas 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb. Cough, cough. Who is currently in the White House? | | |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Read the rest of my comment, I get there eventually. | | |
| ▲ | tharmas an hour ago | parent [-] | | Fair. And I agree with nearly everything in your comment. One thing about tRump, is that he is more blatantly obvious about the "bully" side of America. He is not the first bully; just the first un-subtle American bully. What I find disturbing is the others who enable him. I've long despised the Repugnant Party for their anti-worker ideology but under tRump 2.0 they've gone to a new low that I never thought possible. As much as I despise tRump, the other Repugnant members of congress (the odd rare exception) are absolutely disgraceful. And then is there is the feckless Democrats... |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | palmotea 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If they can exhaust all their firepower in a couple weeks fighting Iran, China would have no reason to feel threatened in the first place. I think the reason China has no reason to be threatened is the US outsourced most of it's manufacturing to them, meaning China now has more skills, know-how, and manufacturing infrastructure to redirect to wartime production. That was truly a brilliant move by US business leaders and the 90s political elite. Besides creating the military vulnerability, it also helped get Donald Trump election, who they all love dearly. |
|
| ▲ | Arodex 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >not whatever this spitting match with Iran is. Are you openly saying the president and the secretary of war are lying when they say they have done "massive" bombings of Iran? |
| |
| ▲ | grey-area 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The president openly lies all the time. About his pool refurbishment, the size of his crowds and even how good he is at golf. | |
| ▲ | sneurlax 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are their mouths open and are they making noise? Then yes. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's an easy one: I don't even have to look at what the facts are to be sure they're lying. Just a question of what about. Although "massive" is a subjective word. Nothing can be as massive as WW2 carpet bombing. | | |
| ▲ | codeduck 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or even what they were regularly doing to grids of rainforest in Vietnam. |
|
|