China ChiCom News Thread

History Learner

Well-known member
They could roll those dice but I don't see China pulling it off.

Japan, India and others would jump in because they see themselves as next.

Sino-India rapprochement has started as of late, most likely India would remain neutral, especially given the fact the U.S. under both Trump and Biden have been hinting at sanctions against them from years. Japan, I have no doubt, would join a conflict to defend Taiwan but AUKUS and Japan can't defeat China in the Taiwan region.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Sino-India rapprochement has started as of late, most likely India would remain neutral, especially given the fact the U.S. under both Trump and Biden have been hinting at sanctions against them from years. Japan, I have no doubt, would join a conflict to defend Taiwan but AUKUS and Japan can't defeat China in the Taiwan region.

you don't fight them there you go into the straits and you keep the slow lumbering oil containers ships from the middle east from going to China. You cut them off from oil and other supplies.

You keep this up for 3 months and china has to decide who gets to keep the lights on, one year? 500 million chinese people die.

You do not fight the Chinese on land and near their waters, you cut them off from the middle eastern crude their economy needs to function.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
you don't fight them there you go into the straits and you keep the slow lumbering oil containers ships from the middle east from going to China. You cut them off from oil and other supplies.

You keep this up for 3 months and china has to decide who gets to keep the lights on, one year? 500 million chinese people die.

You do not fight the Chinese on land and near their waters, you cut them off from the middle eastern crude their economy needs to function.

Which is why the Chinese sign multi-hundred billion dollar deals with other people, like the Russians, who are now looking for other markets. RAND corporation back in March came out with a new strategic look which essentially conceded as much; by pushing Russia firmly into the Chinese camp, we removed any real weapon we had against China.

In effect, the West played itself which is rather funny.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The real shame is when they take it as an act of war and glass NATO, resulting in the deaths of billions.
Why are you trying to dramatize risk of nuclear war with clear intent of making the west act soft?
Considering that Russia still exists, that gives the west license to blow up Russian strategic infrastructure by covert operations of own intelligence operatives till the end of time, and Russia can be told that they set the precedent.
Also throw in a few assassinations in Russia with chemical weapons just for the principle.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Why are you trying to dramatize risk of nuclear war with clear intent of making the west act soft?
Considering that Russia still exists, that gives the west license to blow up Russian strategic infrastructure by covert operations of own intelligence operatives till the end of time, and Russia can be told that they set the precedent.
Also throw in a few assassinations in Russia with chemical weapons just for the principle.

Pretty big difference between destroying an ammunition dump destined for the Ukrainian Army-and thus a valid target under the rules of war-and targeting explict civilian infrastructure like he was saying.

As I’ve grown use to saying to you, you might find it useful to actually know what you’re taking about before posting.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Pretty big difference between destroying an ammunition dump destined for the Ukrainian Army-and thus a valid target under the rules of war-and targeting explict civilian infrastructure like he was saying.
What are you smoking?
There was no war then (just as officially there isn't one now, but back then Russia was officially denying having anything to do with the violence in Ukraine), and the ammo was not destined for Ukraine.
By your logic USA would be more justified in blowing shit up in the USSR and China during the Vietnam War.
Also we were talking of the risk of nuclear escalation, not making excuses and throwing blame, in case you have forgotten, and using historical events to gauge where the risk threshold is and where it isn't.
>civilian infrastructure
Fuel is as vital to modern warfare as ammo.
As I’ve grown use to saying to you, you might find it useful to actually know what you’re taking about before posting.
Blah blah blah, low effort snipe snipes.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
The real shame is when they take it as an act of war and glass NATO, resulting in the deaths of billions.
They already did the same shit long before they invaded Ukraine, and the Russians didn't get glasses when they did it to us and our allies.

But despite your name, you show you really have learned nothing from history and just like to do low-effort, low intelligence snipe-posting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top