Military America Isn’t Ready for War With China by Malcom Kyeyune

Bassoe

Well-known member
compact magazine article
Despite loud Chinese protests, the US is sending one of its top officials to Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi will be the highest-ranking American visitor to the island in 25 years. China’s response has not been confined to the realm of words. Roll-on/roll-off ferries have suddenly deviated from their normal schedules, air-defense assets are being moved around, and the Chinese army is now conducting sudden snap exercises in provinces bordering the straits.

It is hard to avoid the impression that Pelosi—an unpopular, doddering octogenarian—is auditioning for the role of America’s Franz Ferdinand. Meanwhile, America, like Austria-Hungary before it, seems to have entered a period of decadence as it lurches toward a war it does not want to fight and has no guarantee of winning.

“It would be foolish to assume that China is bluffing.”

It would be foolish to assume that China is bluffing, or that the US—with its military in crisis, its social fabric fraying, and its economy in crisis—is ready to fight a two-front conflict against China and Russia.

Afghanistan was a disaster; Ukraine is currently turning into a quagmire not for Russia, but for the entire Western alliance system. Other than cheap bromides about not wearing a tie to work to save energy or taking colder showers, the politicians of America’s European NATO allies have absolutely no plan, no recourse, no means of extracting themselves from the looming social and political crisis that will hit them this winter because of the loss of Russian energy supplies.

And yet the US is walking into a completely predictable conflict with China while having no real plans for what it will do once the shooting starts. This already happened with Russia—nobody seemed to give any thought to how energy sanctions would impact the west—but it promises to be even worse in the Chinese case.

To take but one example, China currently dominates the global market on inputs necessary to make generic antibiotics. The US is thus almost entirely reliant on China for the basic medical innovation that separates us from the middle ages, when mere cuts could turn lethal due to bacterial infection. Were America in 2022 a serious imperial power, plans would already have been in place to build up massive stocks of medical supplies and to shift production home.

This is not being done. In fact, pretty much nothing of the sort is being done, despite the US’s extensive reliance on China. Instead, America’s loyal mandarins are editing the definition of “recession” on Wikipedia, in order to pretend the US isn’t currently in one. In case US antibiotics supplies are cut off, Americans will almost certainly be asked to take special measures to avoid getting sick, because at no point did the current American elites bother to ensure that easily treatable sickness would still be easily treatable in 2024, rather than a possible death sentence.

Neither the American military nor the American economy is in any way ready for what happens if the proverbial Black Hand decides to strike. Those preparations could be made, but the empire is too sclerotic, to corrupt, too dysfunctional to plan ahead. Like their counterparts in Europe, America’s elites will simply hope that things work out, or that when they go catastrophically wrong, that people nevertheless won't get angry enough to start wrecking the political system.

I am no pacifist, and this column is not intended as some sort of call for people to take another hit of the bong while imagining the lyrics of that John Lennon song. A conflict between China and the West is likely inevitable. But competent empires plan ahead and prepare for contingencies. They ask very natural questions in advance, questions like: “What will happen to the US civilian population if we can no longer obtain antibiotics or insulin?” And then they answer those questions—with material preparation—beforehand. America used to ask these questions, it used to make these preparations, it used to be an effective power. But it no longer does, or is. Everyone can see that now; if there was any doubt left after Ukraine, Taiwan is likely to dispel them.

It’s a shame, but perhaps Joe Biden is the perfect president for the current moment. Just as Biden the man is visibly sundowning, the America that he leads now seems to be in the throes of advanced senility. The Empire no longer has any idea what its core interests are, so everything is. Protecting women's football teams in Kabul is just as important as Ukraine NATO accession, which is just as important as Taiwanese independence. And because everything is equally important, nothing really is, because nothing actually gets done right. American leaders today think the nation’s credibility is at risk whenever it fails to “take a stand.” In fact, that credibility has been shredded above all by their repeated failures when they do.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
This assumes China is not dealing with similar and even worse issues.

Every one is fucked to some degree right now.
China is having massive political infighting, and Xinnie the Pooh's position is threatened by rivals. Their military is, basically, half-assed.

On the other hand, America is pretty much compromised on the political stage by China -- Pedo Biden and Biden are basically in the CCP's back pocket, and one major political party are mentally unstable on the whole.

It's a good thing that a war isn't likely to break out: until America cleans house, you'd be fucked. :(
 

Cherico

Well-known member
China is having massive political infighting, and Xinnie the Pooh's position is threatened by rivals. Their military is, basically, half-assed.

On the other hand, America is pretty much compromised on the political stage by China -- Pedo Biden and Biden are basically in the CCP's back pocket, and one major political party are mentally unstable on the whole.

It's a good thing that a war isn't likely to break out: until America cleans house, you'd be fucked. :(

If we fight the chinese on the chinese mainland we would be fucked. If we block any oil tankers from getting to china proper which is pretty easy with the geography and their naval capability. Then they more or less run out of oil in six months. and experience massive famines soon afterwards.

America is a naval power if we fight it as a naval war, I give us pretty good odds of winning.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
"Afghanistan was a disaster; Ukraine is currently turning into a quagmire not for Russia, but for the entire Western alliance system." -- He makes a lot of good points, but I'm not sure I agree with this point at all.

It's a point of drain, but would likely be dropped in a heartbeat if we go hot with China...well, with this Admin, who the hell knows.


If we fight the chinese on the chinese mainland we would be fucked. If we block any oil tankers from getting to china proper which is pretty easy with the geography and their naval capability. Then they more or less run out of oil in six months. and experience massive famines soon afterwards.

I worry about a couple of things if we go all in on starving China of fuel/food.
1. Will they get so desparate they feel the need to toss their nukes at us?
2. What are the consequences for the United States if we upend the tea kettle that is the global economy so handily?
 

Cherico

Well-known member
"Afghanistan was a disaster; Ukraine is currently turning into a quagmire not for Russia, but for the entire Western alliance system." -- He makes a lot of good points, but I'm not sure I agree with this point at all.

It's a point of drain, but would likely be dropped in a heartbeat if we go hot with China...well, with this Admin, who the hell knows.




I worry about a couple of things if we go all in on starving China of fuel/food.
1. Will they get so desparate they feel the need to toss their nukes at us?
2. What are the consequences for the United States if we upend the tea kettle that is the global economy so handily?

1.
We have more nuclear weapons then they do they have hundreds we have thousands.

If they go nuclear those weapons have to be spread around because china has pissed off everyone in the neighborhood. So that means south Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Australia, the philipines, and india another power that has nukes. All of which would be joining the party because of wolf warrior diplomacy.

After this your talking about them being able to send maybe 100 nukes our way, but china's a communist power and those tend to be pretty shit at manufactering things and maintaining them. So you lose rockets due to neglect, poor manufactering and other flaws.

From there the US anti missle tech has been worked on since the 80s, and we will be watching them like a hawk. So after all that I think we would realistically lose a couple dozen cities mostly hawaii and the west coast.

Our missles are better and we have a lot more nukes then they do so that exchange ends with the end of chinese civilization. Because none of their neighbors are going to lift a finger to help them after a first launch. That's easily another century of humilation at least.

2. China's position as a global master of manufactering is coming to an end. The demographic issues are beyond terminal now, add to that water issues, an economy that makes enron looks sane and a leadership that is now completely divorced from the actual populace, this was before covid. China's only solution to that is mass lock downs which means you cant rely on them for fucking anything.

Yes it would fuck the global economy but the global economy and the chinese one in specific is fucked no matter what. And China did pretty much all of this to themselves

Communism folks not even once.
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
SE Asia has a nuclear free status currently, though with the Puppy Cuck Diplomacy that China employs, that status could be abolished rather quickly. If China does get a heavy dose of instant sunshine, that might be more than just a century of humiliation. It would be an era where the Chinese civilization was subjected to a de facto nuclear genocide.

If America really was smart, it would incite the ethnic minorities that are chafing under Chinese rule to actually engage in actual ethnic conflicts. Basically Kosovo War on steroids. Plus replace the pro-China regimes in SE Asia with actual Sinophobic regimes that won't be shy to call for their local Chinese populations to be expelled.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
@Cherico

I'm not saying China wouldn't end up eating shit.

I'm merely asking that we look at the costs of such courses of action. You say that we may lose a couple dozen cities. That's not good thing, even if it erases China. Hell, erasing China isn't a good thing. Lord knows what all that fallout will do to the rest of the USA and Asia Pacific.

Does China try and nuke everyone it can b/c it's going down? Do those countries respond in kind? More fallout...more problems.

Let's take a look at what happens if we even just shutdown all shipments from China and we get nothing we're used to getting from them.

- are we getting any of the drugs necessary for what...15% of our population to live?
- antibiotics as mentioned?
- I think we'll be fine without all the random trash they produce for us though Walmart and Amazon may take hits...which will hurt a lot of communities.
- what other industries are torn apart or simply not supplied?
- Does Japan disappear from the map b/c China decides to eradicate per their stated plans?
- Does Taiwan go the same way?
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
We have more nuclear weapons then they do they have hundreds we have thousands.
Being able to nuke the lifeless rubble again is irreverent.
From there the US anti missle tech has been worked on since the 80s, and we will be watching them like a hawk.
Considering how the US' military procurement acts when they are being overseen, does anyone genuinely think the US military black budget is going to funding scifi technologies rather than just being embezzled?
So after all that I think we would realistically lose a couple dozen cities mostly hawaii and the west coast.
Which is still an unacceptable price. Yeah, beating a nuclear superpower with total casualties consisting of merely a few million of your own civilians in nuked cities and economic collapse rather than everyone is an astonishing feat of military prowess , but still fundamentally a failure since zero remains the only acceptable number of American civilian casualties in a war between two foreign nations.
Yes it would fuck the global economy but the global economy and the chinese one in specific is fucked no matter what.
We've dug up all the oil essential for building technological infrastructure which can be extracted without preexisting technological infrastructure. If civilization collapsed now, we'd never get back to our current technological level.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
[...]
Considering how the US' military procurement acts when they are being overseen, does anyone genuinely think the US military black budget is going to funding scifi technologies rather than just being embezzled?
[...]
Actually, yes. Yes, I do.

There's a lot of shit that DARPA has tucked and hidden away that is pretty much out of a sci-fi flick, and it's been that way for decades.

A lot of the normal stuff we see now being employed by troops as an everyday thing? From weapons, vehicles and aircraft, small arms, bullets, et cetera, to other things like artificial blood? Once upon a time, those were seen in the same way we'd look at honest to god Terminators, if the US military announced they'd been making T-800's right now.

Same deal with stuff from the Cold War, like the Blackbird. At the time that aircraft came out, popular TV shows had planes like that as belonging to sci-fi organizations like International Rescue, or shit you'd see in Space: 1999 or UFO: Enemy Unknown. And the US military, DARPA, were developing/fielding it.

Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if they had fucking sci-fi energy weapons in development (as in 'pew pew lasers', not microwave emitters), after realizing railguns/coilguns have an obsolescence value despite not even being fully perfected yet.

There's a saying that the civilian sectors' technologies are two steps behind that of the military's -- what should be added is that a lot of bizarre and batshit crazy stuff DARPA has in development is two leaps ahead from what's being fielded openly by said military.

So, I reiterate: I absolutely believe that DARPA has a lot of near-alien shit going on in their "black" budgets.
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
As I may have stated in a few previous posts, if the American defense industry saw the realization that simplifying their own equipment by making it LESS maintenance intensive, and easy to fix, plus selling it for an affordable price, they could sell them in even larger quantities. For the much vaunted military industrial complex, they seem to forget the basics of supply and demand. If for example, the Javelin and HiMARS fixed their issues to make it simple to build and easy to fix, they’d sell more of them to Ukraine for a lower price. Hell, simplifying the designs for American aircraft, warships and tanks could benefit American allies as well, since they would now have more US built weapons that they can actually maintain.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
The MIC doesn't care about that, though. If anything, they build intentionally defective/troublesome equipment so as to milk the government as much as possible before the program is inevitably cancelled, or to ensure "sustainability" in the form of continual repair and servicing.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
As I may have stated in a few previous posts, if the American defense industry saw the realization that simplifying their own equipment by making it LESS maintenance intensive, and easy to fix, plus selling it for an affordable price, they could sell them in even larger quantities. For the much vaunted military industrial complex, they seem to forget the basics of supply and demand. If for example, the Javelin and HiMARS fixed their issues to make it simple to build and easy to fix, they’d sell more of them to Ukraine for a lower price. Hell, simplifying the designs for American aircraft, warships and tanks could benefit American allies as well, since they would now have more US built weapons that they can actually maintain.

Except they don't want that. What they want is to centralize the maintenance - so that instead of maintenance being done by the buyer (which can be done in case of simple weapons), weapons would have to be sent to the manufacturer for the maintenance and/or upgrades. Vaunted modular design is actually an example of this - you have an engine with anywhere between 5 and 20 modules. This does simplify frontline maintenance, as all you need to do is swap out the faulty module. But the modules themselves are not repaired in the field - they cannot be. Instead, they are sent to the manufacturer for repairs.

Arms industry today is less about defense and more about profits. Although, to be fair, some of the above has to do with naturally increasing complexity of the weapons.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
As I may have stated in a few previous posts, if the American defense industry saw the realization that simplifying their own equipment by making it LESS maintenance intensive, and easy to fix, plus selling it for an affordable price, they could sell them in even larger quantities.
Pure wishful thinking. If American defense industry made its fighter jets use 1/10 of the fuel they do, they would also be a worldwide export hit, but that's straight out impossible.
For the much vaunted military industrial complex, they seem to forget the basics of supply and demand. If for example, the Javelin and HiMARS fixed their issues to make it simple to build and easy to fix, they’d sell more of them to Ukraine for a lower price.
It's impossible to make this kind of precision weapons cheap and simple, unless you have a way to make the requisite electronics cheap and simple. Once the technology to make that happen exists, you will notice by going to an electronics store and seeing that all the prices have mysteriously lost a digit.
Hell, simplifying the designs for American aircraft, warships and tanks could benefit American allies as well, since they would now have more US built weapons that they can actually maintain.
Other than going back to less capable, less technologically advanced equivalents, not gonna happen. No one wants M-60A1's anymore, everyone wants M1A2SEPv3, and it's impossible to have the capabilities of the latter with the costs and maintenance of the former.
Although, to be fair, some of the above has to do with naturally increasing complexity of the weapons.
Bingo. Up until the 60's, a typical rural mechanic experienced with agricultural machinery could do most of potential maintenance work on the typical tanks of the day. Now? Not a fucking chance. In fact newest, electronics packed tank models are closing in on the pricing of cheaper military helicopters, which is also reflective of the level of complexity we are talking about.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Bingo. Up until the 60's, a typical rural mechanic experienced with agricultural machinery could do most of potential maintenance work on the typical tanks of the day. Now? Not a fucking chance. In fact newest, electronics packed tank models are closing in on the pricing of cheaper military helicopters, which is also reflective of the level of complexity we are talking about.

Yeah. Although I do think keeping cheaper and simpler weapons in usage is a good idea. Sure, recoilless rifle may not have the same antitank capability of an ATGM like Javelin, but it is a) far more versatile and b) far cheaper. And as Ukrainian war (and 1990s wars in Yugoslavia, and quite a few other wars) has shown, you cannot fight a major conventional war with standing / professional army alone, unless you have a massive advantage in resources over the opponent.

You need conscripts, you need the militia. And to equip them, you need cheap and simple weapons. Of course, these will have to be mostly infantry weapons - I doubt a tank can be made "cheap and simple" and still be effective on a modern battlefield* - but just the fact that you have Javelin doesn't mean you don't need Carl Gustav as well.

And now I have a mental image of a cropduster equipped with bazookas...

* Those T-34s, M18s and M36s Croatian Army had used during the Homeland War might disagree somewhat... but even if such tanks can be useful, they definitely can't be frontline units, and maintenance and fuel they would require would likely be better used on the first-line tanks.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Yeah. Although I do think keeping cheaper and simpler weapons in usage is a good idea. Sure, recoilless rifle may not have the same antitank capability of an ATGM like Javelin, but it is a) far more versatile and b) far cheaper. And as Ukrainian war (and 1990s wars in Yugoslavia, and quite a few other wars) has shown, you cannot fight a major conventional war with standing / professional army alone, unless you have a massive advantage in resources over the opponent.
If you want cheap and simple, M72's are still in production for that reason...
Recoilless rifles of most models are going away for similar reasons as towed anti tank guns - lack of mobility meaning they are a pain in the ass to use tactically, in turn getting the crew killed by drone spotted artillery or abandoned and wrecked by said artillery.
The only exceptions are increasingly slimmed down models like Carl Gustav, that can be moved around almost like an RPG.
In fact the same problem is starting to extend even to towed artillery.
You need conscripts, you need the militia. And to equip them, you need cheap and simple weapons. Of course, these will have to be mostly infantry weapons - I doubt a tank can be made "cheap and simple" and still be effective on a modern battlefield* - but just the fact that you have Javelin doesn't mean you don't need Carl Gustav as well.
Well even USMC still has those. Javelin is just a whole different class of a weapon, closer to proper ATGMs like TOW than to basic infantry AT.
* Those T-34s, M18s and M36s Croatian Army had used during the Homeland War might disagree somewhat... but even if such tanks can be useful, they definitely can't be frontline units, and maintenance and fuel they would require would likely be better used on the first-line tanks.
What's useful in a civil war or other third world skirmish is a quite a bit wider category than what's useful in a proper war between serious armies.
Also it was quite a different generational gap. Back then neither side's hardware, old or new really had the advantages of full stabilization, electronic target acquisition and fire control, and so on. A T-34 was not a worse fire support vehicle than a relatively new BMP-1 (nevermind the crappy ATGM and infantry carrying capability), everything else was down to crew skills and who gets the first shot. But now, against modern vehicles, the chances of such getting the first shot are significantly lowered. Not to mention the sheer gap in night fighting ability...
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
If you want cheap and simple, M72's are still in production for that reason...
Recoilless rifles of most models are going away for similar reasons as towed anti tank guns - lack of mobility meaning they are a pain in the ass to use tactically, in turn getting the crew killed by drone spotted artillery or abandoned and wrecked by said artillery.
The only exceptions are increasingly slimmed down models like Carl Gustav, that can be moved around almost like an RPG.
In fact the same problem is starting to extend even to towed artillery.

I was actually thinking Carl Gustav or AT-4. They don't need to be able to penetrate tank's frontal armor, they just need to give the militia enough anti-tank capability that armored units cannot simply roll over them.

Well even USMC still has those. Javelin is just a whole different class of a weapon, closer to proper ATGMs like TOW than to basic infantry AT.

OK, thanks.

What's useful in a civil war or other third world skirmish is a quite a bit wider category than what's useful in a proper war between serious armies.

Homeland War was not a "civil war". Serbia did in fact directly attack Eastern Slavonia and Dubrovnik in 1991. (which is the period I was talking about), and Serbs in Croatia were supplied and supported by the Belgrade.

That is like saying American Revolution was a civil war because some Americans supported the Crown, or that various uprisings against colonial powers were civil wars.

Personally, I do not think "using the fifth column to invade a country" justifies calling something a civil war. Otherwise current war in Ukraine is a civil war.

Also it was quite a different generational gap. Back then neither side's hardware, old or new really had the advantages of full stabilization, electronic target acquisition and fire control, and so on. A T-34 was not a worse fire support vehicle than a relatively new BMP-1 (nevermind the crappy ATGM and infantry carrying capability), everything else was down to crew skills and who gets the first shot. But now, against modern vehicles, the chances of such getting the first shot are significantly lowered. Not to mention the sheer gap in night fighting ability...

Agreed.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I was actually thinking Carl Gustav or AT-4. They don't need to be able to penetrate tank's frontal armor, they just need to give the militia enough anti-tank capability that armored units cannot simply roll over them.
The more important part is that tanks aren't the only armored vehicles on a battlefield.
Homeland War was not a "civil war". Serbia did in fact directly attack Eastern Slavonia and Dubrovnik in 1991. (which is the period I was talking about), and Serbs in Croatia were supplied and supported by the Belgrade.

That is like saying American Revolution was a civil war because some Americans supported the Crown, or that various uprisings against colonial powers were civil wars.

Personally, I do not think "using the fifth column to invade a country" justifies calling something a civil war. Otherwise current war in Ukraine is a civil war.
The current fancy term for that is hybrid war. And 2014 Ukraine was very much a textbook example of that.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
I'm thinking that if a war goes on for long enough, those super-tech high-maintenance weapon systems won't be available enough, and it will go back to the low-expense stuff.
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
I'm thinking that if a war goes on for long enough, those super-tech high-maintenance weapon systems won't be available enough, and it will go back to the low-expense stuff.
In other words, the US would have to crank out older equipment then.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top