Is China really a threat to the United States Hegemony?

Knowledgeispower said:
in 1950 through 1952 the Soviets didn't have a viable nuclear arsenal which makes sense because their first few bombs were pretty much rushed in a successful attempt to make the USSR look stronger while the needed infrastructure to make a large arsenal was still being set up. Plus in said time period nothing the Russians had could actually carry their bombs
Click to expand...
But we would set a precedent that nuking is a viable option and things would get out if hand
 
Yeah triggering nuclear escalation over the Korean War wouldn't be worth it then and in hindsight it was the right call to make. Just like (with very minor exceptions) none of the powers in World War Two decided to use chemical or biological weapons, Harry Truman deciding that nuclear weapons were a weapon not to be deployed by some "dashing Lieutenant Colonel" but only authorized by the President himself in most cases was the right call.

With that said, there were some lapses with Truman's policies. By almost completely removing the Pentagon from the nuclear question, it did inhibit the Pentagons ability to fully integrate the use of nuclear weapons in case of a war with the Soviet Union and furthermore might've limited its deterrent effect on a smaller scale. But overall, it was the right choice to make. The West would've had an incredible challenge in rebuilding Europe and the rest of the Postwar World and suppress the expansion of communism to lots of areas, while also countering the Soviet Unions massive manpower and military manufacturing advantage without the perpetual threat of nuclear deterrence in response to Soviet aggression.

President Truman (and subsequent leaders) did a good thing in actually developing a weapon so destructive, and even using it twice, but then keeping it holstered ever since then. The Soviet Union managed to collapse and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction subsided greatly without launching a single nuke in anger. That's a good thing. Even a "limited" or "one sided" nuclear exchange in the 1950's or early 1960's would've easily been more devastating then any prior conflict in scale and death and both short and long term cost even though the United States had the clear advantage in strategic nuclear weaponry.
 
And in the early years, while the Soviets don't have the conventional means to deliver nukes to the USA - bombers or missiles - nothing stop then from using 'unconventional' ways to do said deliveries. For example, a suicide submarine that 'park' on the bottom of the NY port and detonate one or a subverted third country cargo ship, with impeccable papers. When the need exists, the way is found.
 
Sailor.X said:
We need to do to them what we do to pirates. Sink their ships. They do that to their neighbors so turn about is fair play.
Click to expand...
Just do it in a way we can deny. Like say using up all the old Mk.46 torpedoes we have in storage after we retired them from active service since they're are a ton of them that have been built and sold over the years
 
Last edited:
We shouldnt have nuked Russia during Korea, we should have nuked them during WW2. Lets see them deliver a nuke when they have no government, if any tin pot tyrant that popped up in the wasteland afterwards actually got his hands on a nuke, he'd just use it on another despot or sell it.
 
Aaron Fox said:
You would be surprised, given how fast they've been moving. It was once upon a time that megawatt grade lasers would be considered outright fiction...
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union tried launching a 1 MW CO2 laser in 1987. We've been able to build megawatt lasers for 40 years. Simply pumping up laser power is not the issue that makes lasers hard to use.

Atmophere itself will generally make using lasers in atmosphere difficult.

paulobrito said:
Battlemechs are impossible - just look at the ground pressure.
Click to expand...

Eh, the ground pressure issue is I think somewhat overstated: looking at the mechanics of it, I don't think ground pressure is actually quite as big an issue for legs as it is for tracks or wheels: horses manage good cross country with twice the ground pressure of a tank. Feet are also less limited in width than tracks are: you can snow shoe a mech's foot theoretically a bit better than you can increase track width, which cuts down on internal volume.

My sense is that there's a scale down where legs have theoretical advantages over wheeled or tracked, and a scale up where legs have a theoretical advantage. Ignoring immense cost differences of course: for example, the Boston Dynamics BigDog might have some theoretical capacity advantage at its size over a wheeled platform, but I could see that capacity being so expensive its not worth the cost to get that advantage compared to just using a vastly cheaper ATV or just a literal mule.

But, I would probably say ground pressure really doesn't make Battlemech's impossible. We might bring up specific fictional designs and doing the measure to show the design is terrible and the feet are way too small for how heavy it actually is, but fictional battlemechs (and tanks, and ships) are notoriously poorly proportioned compared to something reasonable.
 
JagerIV said:
The Soviet Union tried launching a 1 MW CO2 laser in 1987. We've been able to build megawatt lasers for 40 years. Simply pumping up laser power is not the issue that makes lasers hard to use.

Atmophere itself will generally make using lasers in atmosphere difficult.
Click to expand...
That should be noted that those lasers are extremely inefficient (last I've checked, less than 20%) as well, last I've heard we're heading into the mid-40s now...
 
Zachowon said:
Warhawks like Dick are going to say "Invade!"
Click to expand...
... but the last time they tried that (Iraq) became an unpopular quagmire that turned a lot of people off. So unless an Iranian nuke detonates in New York City (and, to be frank, Iran would tell the US and the rest of the world right quick that they had nukes and someone -likely some Republican Guard chuckleheads that went off the reservation- nicked one), Biden's course with Iran would be reinstating the treaty.

The biggest problem on the world stage is Putin and associates, as they've been shown to have a complete disregard for geopolitical consequences over the last decade.
 
Aaron Fox said:
... but the last time they tried that (Iraq) became an unpopular quagmire that turned a lot of people off. So unless an Iranian nuke detonates in New York City (and, to be frank, Iran would tell the US and the rest of the world right quick that they had nukes and someone -likely some Republican Guard chuckleheads that went off the reservation- nicked one), Biden's course with Iran would be reinstating the treaty.

The biggest problem on the world stage is Putin and associates, as they've been shown to have a complete disregard for geopolitical consequences over the last decade.
Click to expand...
Except we have had valid reasons to go to war with Iran, and still most likely will should Biden be elected. It wont be by choice mind you.
 
Zachowon said:
Except we have had valid reasons to go to war with Iran, and still most likely will should Biden be elected. It wont be by choice mind you.
Click to expand...
Not really, sane people in government want containment over war, as the last few times war was used, it didn't go so well, especially with the public. Containment is not only more viable but also a lot easier to sell with the public.

Iran's government would be suicidally stupid to cause a war.
 
Zachowon said:
IF Trump wins expect war with China in 4 to 5 years. 10 max. If biden wins expect war with Iran.

War with China will be in Taiwan
Click to expand...

War with China over Taiwan won't happen. China won't attack the US or its direct allies (ie, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). Invading Taiwan would be suicide, as the Taiwanese are heavily entrenched and prepared to bleed the Chinese dry. Taiwan is like the US during the early 1800s; sure they'll lose in an invasion, but the invasion would be so costly it would never happen.

Taiwan is important to trade (protecting trade routes), and keeping it out of Chinese hands is important to keeping China contained, so the US will help out. Any massing of troops along the east coast across from Taiwan would be noticed by satellites long before Chinese soldiers set foot on Taiwan, so the US would be prepared early. China would be in a losing position as their fleets could be taken out by nukes, meaning China only nukes would be in their submarines that were still at sea... and they can't really do anything substantial on their own they would affect the war effort besides just further antagonizing everyone. So they won't try in the first place.

The CCP is evil, but they're not stupid. If they were stupid, they wouldn't have outlasted the Soviet Union and managed to survive for almost 70 years.

If China does decide to try aggressively expanding, it will be towards the Middle East and India. The US probably wouldn't get involved. But I think that the Chinese already have their hands full trying to manage what's already on their plate.


As for war with Iran, it's possible, but I doubt the US will get involved unless Iran actually gets nukes. Unlike the CCP, the Iranians might have religious motivations to go to war and might be committed to following through with their beliefs, which makes them dangerous. I'm not confident that they would be like South Korea where they have nukes but are sane enough to never actually try to use them. I think that the moment it was discovered that Iran had nukes, Israel or Russia might get involved and take hostile action towards them, and I don't think the US would let that slide (Iran getting nukes) either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top