China ChiCom News Thread

[DarthOne]

If only we had people whining about Russia's and China's military-industrial complex as much as they whine about the US one...
Useful idiots...

Probably because most of us are from the USA and thus are more intimately familiar with how said military-industrial complex has screwed over the American people.

Furthermore, if China and Russia want to waste billions of dollars and who knows how many lives mucking around in the third world and fighting decades long forever wars, I say let them drain themselves dry.

 

[DarthOne]

China and Russia don't spend nearly as much as we do. On the other hand, if there were to be a big spending cut, those most effected would probably be the service-people and not the manufacturers.

And I am not without sympathy. However, I’d say that the needs of the American people as a whole outweighs their needs. Maybe they can work something out on a state level to help them get a new jobs or something. It’s not like the Federal government needs more money or programs.

 

[Marduk]

Probably because most of us are from the USA and thus are more intimately familiar with how said military-industrial complex has screwed over the American people.

How did it? Winning the Cold War was also "screwing over the American people"?

Furthermore, if China and Russia want to waste billions of dollars and who knows how many lives mucking around in the third world and fighting decades long forever wars, I say let them drain themselves dry.

Implying they are as stupid as the western politically correct leaders regarding such things.

China and Russia don't spend nearly as much as we do. On the other hand, if there were to be a big spending cut, those most effected would probably be the service-people and not the manufacturers.

Would not be so sure about that in terms of real rather than official spending and correcting for purchasing power. And if so, great, wars are often won before the first shot is fired, and that's how it is done. There is no concept of fairness in global power games, never was, and never will be.

 

[DarthOne]

@Marduk
Not sure if you are that clueless or are doing a bad job at changing the subject.

I and most of the people who speak against the US military industry complex are speaking of post-Cold War. So regardless of if the military industry complex did help the USA/ the west ‘win’ the Cold War or not is irrelevant.

I at least am talking about the American adventurism in place like the Middle East and, arguably, Ukraine.

As for China and Russia fairing better then the West with its military industrial complex with similar military adventurism… have you lost your mind? Russia and China in particular’s political leadership is inept and corrupt. Their military leadership and military isn’t much better- see for example, Russia’s failure to conquer Ukraine even before the West started throwing military gear and who knows how much of their citizens money at them.

 

[Bacle]

@Marduk
Not sure if you are that clueless or are doing a bad job at changing the subject.

I and most of the people who speak against the US military industry complex are speaking of post-Cold War. So regardless of if the military industry complex did help the USA/ the west ‘win’ the Cold War or not is irrelevant.

I at least am talking about the American adventurism in place like the Middle East and, arguably, Ukraine.

As for China and Russia fairing better then the West with its military industrial complex with similar military adventurism… have you lost your mind? Russia and China in particular’s political leadership is inept and corrupt. Their military leadership and military isn’t much better- see for example, Russia’s failure to conquer Ukraine even before the West started throwing military gear and who knows how much of their citizens money at them.

This falls for one of the biggest illusions of the 90s/00s; that the Cold War 'ended'.

The Cold War never ended on the other side, even if we thought we had 'won', and the US spent/wasted a lot of power and rep in the Middle East that it needed for today, now that Russia has dropped the mask.

So stop thinking and basing your political views on the idea the Cold War 'ended', instead realize at most we went into half-time and now everyone is playing for keeps and no one gets to 'opt-out' just because of domestic woes.

 

[Typhonis]

Makes you wonder how things would have gone if the US didn't buy the Cold War was over and acted accordingly.

 

[Marduk]

@Marduk
Not sure if you are that clueless or are doing a bad job at changing the subject.

I and most of the people who speak against the US military industry complex are speaking of post-Cold War. So regardless of if the military industry complex did help the USA/ the west ‘win’ the Cold War or not is irrelevant.

Sorry, but you forgot to add that as a small text footnote or something.
Like:
"Recycled useful idiot whining"*
*Only applying after 1991, before 1991 this was commie simping, it's just a swell idea since then.
No, this shit was childish useful idiocy in 1960, it was the same in 1980, it was the same in 2000, and it is the same now.

I at least am talking about the American adventurism in place like the Middle East and, arguably, Ukraine.

If you weren't just parroting that as some useful idiot's propaganda and thought it through yourself properly, you would understand that the very fact that you throw sandbox adventures, Ukraine and Taiwan into the same bag compromises away even the possibility of your opinion on this being thought out at all.

As for China and Russia fairing better then the West with its military industrial complex with similar military adventurism… have you lost your mind? Russia and China in particular’s political leadership is inept and corrupt. Their military leadership and military isn’t much better- see for example, Russia’s failure to conquer Ukraine even before the West started throwing military gear and who knows how much of their citizens money at them.

And that's where hippies or whatever you call the people who recycle hippie's stupid whining about the MIC right now come in, to compensate for the advantage of the relative lack of corruption with political bullshit exploiting the weakness of western societies' governance systems. The influence this sort of ideas push is just a different way to say "be inept too".

 

[Zachowon]

Let's put it this way.
If we cut any funding on our Military, we lose the next war.
Believe it or not every penny is actually useful for something

 

[Cherico]

Let's put it this way.
If we cut any funding on our Military, we lose the next war.
Believe it or not every penny is actually useful for something

Ok were going back to geography

This is planet earth and this is a physical map of the contiential united states.

America has land boarders with exactly two countries America has more industry and people then both of them.

To the south you have Mexico which has a natural land boarder between it and the united states in the way of a fucking huge desert. And beyond that desert you have mountainous terrain until you get to mexico's central core. It has exactly one decent natural port Veracruze its also in the tropics so people escape all the problems that go along with that by going up hill until they reach a temperate zone.

Which is sensible but means their not a naval power.

Canada has a 10th of america's population and is basically split into 5 or so chunks by the canadian shield which means that the provinces are more likely to trade with the south then with each other. Most of the population lives close to the american boarder.

These are the two potential vectors to attack the united states by land and both of them are firm members of nafta and are not going to host an invading army because their not stupid (Ask the germans how the zimmerman telegram worked)

That means to attack the united states a nuclear power your going to have to get past its navy the largest navy in the world and who is currently allied to the 3rd and 2nd largest navy in the world, and then has to hope we don't use the best nuclear weapons stock pile on the planet to nuke them to kingdom come.

The United states will be fine with some cuts.

 

[Zachowon]

No it will not.
Because when the next war happens, am ocean doesn't mean shit of the enemy can hit it with missiles.
Because if we allow any of our adversaries to get ahead of us because we cut any funding, that is more American lives lost.
Cut funding, you lose that next missile interceptor. Cut funding you lose the troops to man the vehicles. Cut funding you basically tell China "Here is the whole of the Pacific. Have at it."
A navy is nit the only thing needed. Every branch has to work together to be maximally efficient. Army can and will provide all ground logistics. Marines are the capable force to move quickly in indopacom, Navy and Air Force are main fighting forces but that doesn't mean ahit when infantry are always needed.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Let's put it this way.
If we cut any funding on our Military, we lose the next war.
Believe it or not every penny is actually useful for something

Albeit probably be much better to remove a lot of the graft and overpricing than increasing the budget other than to counter inflation as related to stuff not in the field of personnel. Aka Healthcare, improving quarters and field kit, food, and of course wages and increasing personnel count

Lord knows getting rid of a solid chunk of the corruption and the like would dramatically increase the funds available for infrastructure upgrades and procurement

 

[bintananth]

Let's put it this way.
If we cut any funding on our Military, we lose the next war.
Believe it or not every penny is actually useful for something

Says the man who is part of said military.

Yes, a strong military is good. However, the US military has never passed an audit.

The Bridge: The Pentagon Can’t Keep Track of its Money

A startling lack of accountability

www.pogo.org

The Pentagon fails its fifth audit in a row - Responsible Statecraft

If the Defense Department can't get its books straight, how can it be trusted with a budget of more than $800 billion per year?

responsiblestatecraft.org

To the Pentagon: millions of dollars vanishing into the metaphorical couch cushions is a day ending in "-y".

If the Pentagon didn't treat their budget like petty cash or loose change in a vehicle cup holder you might have a valid point about cutting the military budget. Until then, you don't.

 

[Bacle]

Let's put it this way.
If we cut any funding on our Military, we lose the next war.
Believe it or not every penny is actually useful for something

No it will not.
Because when the next war happens, am ocean doesn't mean shit of the enemy can hit it with missiles.
Because if we allow any of our adversaries to get ahead of us because we cut any funding, that is more American lives lost.
Cut funding, you lose that next missile interceptor. Cut funding you lose the troops to man the vehicles. Cut funding you basically tell China "Here is the whole of the Pacific. Have at it."
A navy is nit the only thing needed. Every branch has to work together to be maximally efficient. Army can and will provide all ground logistics. Marines are the capable force to move quickly in indopacom, Navy and Air Force are main fighting forces but that doesn't mean ahit when infantry are always needed.

It is Appropriations time already?

Because that's pretty much the standard line given whenever the budget fight is about to begin, and the Army thinks it will get last place in priority behind other services.

We aren't going to be doing much 'ground war' that needs infantry, and if we are doing opposed landings/island hopping in the Pacific or storming into an occupied France again, the situation is already gone very, very wrong, so wrong that no amount of army grunts will fix it.

Face it, modern warfighting the US is likely to engage in is not stuff where the Army matters much, outside of air defense purposes.

 

[LordsFire]

Face it, modern warfighting the US is likely to engage in is not stuff where the Army matters much, outside of air defense purposes.

Are you aware of 'fleet in being' doctrine?

It applies to large formations of soldiers as well.

 

[Bacle]

Are you aware of 'fleet in being' doctrine?

It applies to large formations of soldiers as well.

...eh, that used to be the case, however the reality is the kinda wars the US is likely to fight in the future have very little for the Army to do except AA work.

The Corp of Engineers is the part of the Army that is actually valuable going forward, not the ground pounders.

We need more sailors and airmen than ground pounders, because the wars the US is likely to be involved in in the future are ones where we are fighting in the air and on the sea, not so much on land. Which means the Army basically just exists as a large AA corp, more than a force to take and hold ground.

Unless Canada literally lets the CCP station a whole army group there to attempt something cute, there isn't much call for the US Army to do what it wants/is designed to do, and you see how little the Army likes being relgated to the air defense role.

So yeah, Zach's rhetoric sounds very much like what is always heard from the Army at Appropriations time, and the same 'Army is still as vital as the rest' in order to justify higher priority in the budget fight.

Also, the points about the Pentagon audits is very relevant, when complaints about the budget come in. How does the Army and military in general know how much they need, if they don't even know how much they actually have to begin with?

Of course, the 'failed audits' could just be cover for not disclosing that the 'missing' money is just quietly funneled to black projects, but no one in DC or the media would admit/posit this.

The idea of maybe there are expenditures in the military which simply are not needed/are the result of graft is something no service will admit going into the Appropriations fight.

 

[King Arts]

No it will not.
Because when the next war happens, am ocean doesn't mean shit of the enemy can hit it with missiles.
Because if we allow any of our adversaries to get ahead of us because we cut any funding, that is more American lives lost.
Cut funding, you lose that next missile interceptor. Cut funding you lose the troops to man the vehicles. Cut funding you basically tell China "Here is the whole of the Pacific. Have at it."
A navy is nit the only thing needed. Every branch has to work together to be maximally efficient. Army can and will provide all ground logistics. Marines are the capable force to move quickly in indopacom, Navy and Air Force are main fighting forces but that doesn't mean ahit when infantry are always needed.

Again you lost our last war in Afghanistan and you had an infinite budget. Vietnam the same. A future war with Iran also the same you are capitalist right? Well capitalism means that businesses audit themselves and reduce things that aren’t helpful. The Army is created to fight to protect Americans citizens rights. Yet it lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Those nations did not end up taking away the rights of Americans thus I can conclude that the wars were unnecessary, because those fights were not about protecting our rights. So it would be good to reduce the military so people are less tempted to use it in foreign entanglements.

 

[LordsFire]

...eh, that used to be the case, however the reality is the kinda wars the US is likely to fight in the future have very little for the Army to do except AA work.

It is really bizarre just how determined you are to not understand so many things. It's why I keep saying that you still think like a leftist.

The ultimate reality is that in order to control a place, you need boots on the ground. You can deter, degrade, dispirit, and perhaps even obliterate a place and a hostile military with air and sea power, but if you want to control something, you need infantry on the ground. That means that even if you do not intend to fight a war that ends with you marching soldiers through the enemy's capital, you still need to have the capability.

There is no getting around this, and your failure to understand it puts huge holes in large swathes of your thinking.

Again you lost our last war in Afghanistan and you had an infinite budget. Vietnam the same. A future war with Iran also the same you are capitalist right? Well capitalism means that businesses audit themselves and reduce things that aren’t helpful. The Army is created to fight to protect Americans citizens rights. Yet it lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Those nations did not end up taking away the rights of Americans thus I can conclude that the wars were unnecessary, because those fights were not about protecting our rights. So it would be good to reduce the military so people are less tempted to use it in foreign entanglements.

It's particularly hilarious that you cite two examples of wars and learn exactly the wrong lessons.

Both the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars were lost purely politically. Militarily, the US had crushing, overwhelming successes in just about every engagement. It was the lack of political will that resulted in those wars being lost, not the ability of the military to kill people and break things being deficient.

To be specific, the Vietnam war was lost because the Democrats in congress bitched out and did nothing when the North Vietnamese broke the treaty we pushed them to sign with South Vietnam, breaking the promise made to the South Vietnamese. Afghanistan was lost because there was literally no win condition aside from 'magically turn a tribalistic muslim culture into a western democracy,' which was never going to happen.

In both cases, the hostile force rolled in and established control after the USA pulled out/was finalizing its pull out.

And yes, Bacle, they used infantry to establish that control.

 

[King Arts]

It's particularly hilarious that you cite two examples of wars and learn exactly the wrong lessons.

Both the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars were lost purely politically. Militarily, the US had crushing, overwhelming successes in just about every engagement. It was the lack of political will that resulted in those wars being lost, not the ability of the military to kill people and break things being deficient.

To be specific, the Vietnam war was lost because the Democrats in congress bitched out and did nothing when the North Vietnamese broke the treaty we pushed them to sign with South Vietnam, breaking the promise made to the South Vietnamese. Afghanistan was lost because there was literally no win condition aside from 'magically turn a tribalistic muslim culture into a western democracy,' which was never going to happen.

In both cases, the hostile force rolled in and established control after the USA pulled out/was finalizing its pull out.

War is not won by kill count otherwise the confederates and Nazis would have won.
You keep giving the same answer Zach would give or other soldiers “we did not lose on the battlefield we lost because of politics.”
It does not matter you also missed my other point. The one questioning the value of the Army and having such a large one. You want to make your army large enough to fit your goals not as big as possible. The purpose of the Army is to protect the rights of Americans especially from foreign invasion. For example they fought for independence in the revolution and 1812. In the civil war they fought for freedom of black Americans. If they lost those wars either America would not exist or black Americans in the south would be slaves with no rights. Those wars were necessary if they would be lost the effects would be catastrophic. People tried to make the same arguments for Vietnam and Afghanistan “Dey hate our freedoms.”

Well those wars were lost yet we did not lose our freedoms from those countries. That shows me those wars were unnecessary after all we are not under Sharia law, the Army was not made to support an empire that is what its current budget seems to be. Because if the goal is to maintain hegemony and Imperial dominance then yes the funds are at the right amount of possible even too low. But if our goal is merely to protect our rights and independence as a nation we are paying too much.

 

[Bacle]

It is really bizarre just how determined you are to not understand so many things. It's why I keep saying that you still think like a leftist.

The ultimate reality is that in order to control a place, you need boots on the ground. You can deter, degrade, dispirit, and perhaps even obliterate a place and a hostile military with air and sea power, but if you want to control something, you need infantry on the ground. That means that even if you do not intend to fight a war that ends with you marching soldiers through the enemy's capital, you still need to have the capability.

There is no getting around this, and your failure to understand it puts huge holes in large swathes of your thinking.

And you fail to understand the US public does not want us going and invading places.

We need an Air Force, we need a Navy, and we already have the Marine's to guard the Navy's nukes and Coast Guard to do the semi-civilian coastal enforcement/patrol duties.

Outside of AA work, and work for the Corp of Engineers, there isn't much call for Army grunts in the wars the US is likely to face in the future, or much reason outside the Corp of Engineers for the Army to continue to exist as a separate service, instead of being rolled into the Air Force, Navy, and Marines to cut down on bureaucratic overhead.

We could strip the Army down to ACE and AA units, give the tanks to the Marines, and we wouldn't really lose an capabilities that we are actually likely to need as a nation going forward.

We do not need to 'take and hold' any territory that is not US territory already.

It's particularly hilarious that you cite two examples of wars and learn exactly the wrong lessons.

Both the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars were lost purely politically. Militarily, the US had crushing, overwhelming successes in just about every engagement. It was the lack of political will that resulted in those wars being lost, not the ability of the military to kill people and break things being deficient.

To be specific, the Vietnam war was lost because the Democrats in congress bitched out and did nothing when the North Vietnamese broke the treaty we pushed them to sign with South Vietnam, breaking the promise made to the South Vietnamese. Afghanistan was lost because there was literally no win condition aside from 'magically turn a tribalistic muslim culture into a western democracy,' which was never going to happen.

In both cases, the hostile force rolled in and established control after the USA pulled out/was finalizing its pull out.

And yes, Bacle, they used infantry to establish that control.

Neither Veitnam nor A-stan were nuclear powers, and frankly neither are wars that should be used to try to elevate the image of US armed forces or any particular branch/service.

A polished turd is still a turd, and as far as most of the US public is concerned, and the lethality of our forces upper-end abilities don't matter when the fact is war is always a political event, and politics decides when wars end more than force does for most of human history. When the political winds turn against a conflict, doesn't matter how lethal, prepared, brave, or dedicated our service-members are, politics is the ultimate arbitrator of what is allowed to be done by the US armed forces.

That the US Army/military wants to deny that reality, and pretend only it's kinetic force that matters in international affairs and the direction of conflicts, and ignore the domestic realities outside their insulated military bases/lives, it should not be surprised when people aren't signing up in droves.

The US military won't fix it's recruiting and budget woes till it stops huffing it's own farts about PR and starts realizing that it cannot defend Veitnam and A-stan if it wants to bring people onboard. The US public doesn't give a fuck about the military's institutional pride when it allows itself to be used in fucked up endeavors like Veitnam and A-stan became.

The idea we will need a 'traditional' Army to protect ourselves/fight future wars, instead of as AA/Corp of Engineers work, is part of that PR/pride bullshit, and no amount of just yelling 'Lefty' at me is going to change what I have said above.

 

[LordsFire]

War is not won by kill count otherwise the confederates and Nazis would have won.
You keep giving the same answer Zach would give or other soldiers “we did not lose on the battlefield we lost because of politics.”
It does not matter you also missed my other point. The one questioning the value of the Army and having such a large one. You want to make your army large enough to fit your goals not as big as possible. The purpose of the Army is to protect the rights of Americans especially from foreign invasion. For example they fought for independence in the revolution and 1812. In the civil war they fought for freedom of black Americans. If they lost those wars either America would not exist or black Americans in the south would be slaves with no rights. Those wars were necessary if they would be lost the effects would be catastrophic. People tried to make the same arguments for Vietnam and Afghanistan “Dey hate our freedoms.”

Well those wars were lost yet we did not lose our freedoms from those countries. That shows me those wars were unnecessary after all we are not under Sharia law, the Army was not made to support an empire that is what its current budget seems to be. Because if the goal is to maintain hegemony and Imperial dominance then yes the funds are at the right amount of possible even too low. But if our goal is merely to protect our rights and independence as a nation we are paying too much.

This is a fair point about Afghanistan. After the point had been made in retaliation for the Taliban hosting Al-Qaeda, we should have gotten out of there.

Not so for Vietnam. The Cold War was a war, it was fought across the whole globe, and the perception of weakness created by American political surrender in Vietnam resulted in many believing that the USSR was stronger than the USA and NATO. It's why shit like the Iranian hostage crisis happened, and if leftist defeatists and traitors had continued to hold the White House and congress through the 80's, things would have gone very differently.

It wasn't until the utterly crushing triumph of western powers in Gulf War 1, over the soviet-model Iraqi military, that the perception of weakness left by Vietnam was fully dispelled.

We do not need to 'take and hold' any territory that is not US territory already.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are determined, again, to still think like a leftist.

Who do you think is less likely to declare war against the USA, or a US ally, a nation/dictator that knows we have no ability to occupy their capital, and in fact would have to recruit and train an army from scratch, or a nation/dictator that knows that within 48 hours we can have a Brigade on-site, and within a week a full-fledged invasion can be under way?

What do you think detered the Russians from attacking Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania? They're both smaller nations than Ukraine, more easily occupied, and with territory that the Russians want. Unlike with Ukraine, sheer size disparity would be completely overwhelming, like it was with Georgia, and they'd also be able to link up with their Kaliningrad Exclave.

I'll tell you what deters the Russians:

Knowing that the US military would come and kick their faces in if they tried it.

NATO allies would certainly contribute, but the Russians are not intimidated or scared of the Poles, the Germans, the Brits, etc. Smarter Russians know not to dismiss them out of hand, but it is the American military that is the primary muscle behind the alliance.

'But muh nukes!'

If you are weak to conventional conflict, there will be people who will seriously consider throwing the dice that you won't start a nuclear exchange if they 'just' take a bite out of a minor allied nation.

'Surely President Biden won't escalate to nuclear force just because we invaded Estonia!'

Given the historic weakness and cowardice of every Democrat in the WH since JFK, they'd probably even be right. And if you have no response available except nuclear, then every conflict is all-or-nothing.

It's been 32 years since the USSR dissolved, and absolutely nothing that has happened since then has suggested that conventional armies are obsolete. Strategic nuclear weapons change the calculus of war, but they do not obsolete every other part of the war machine.