Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
So the fact the U.S. Armed Forces was defeated by rookies is supposed to translate into increase confidence in our capabilities today somehow? That makes exactly zero sense, nevermind the "Navy Seal Copypasta" you're attempting here.

What you fail to understand, is that the US was not militarily defeated in Korea, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam.

We won crushing military victories in each of these wars, even though in each case we had to project power literally across the entire world to get there.

What happened was political defeat. We simply did not have the will to fight, especially with our elite classes actively sabotaging us. Any war for Taiwan will be won or lost for the same reason.

Sailor X might not be the best at presenting his argument, but his perception of you as shilling for the PLA does seem to be accurate, given you're giving them credit for nonexistent military victories.

More importantly, the Straits of Taiwan make it so a 'forever war' is not functionally possible. North Vietnam shared a border with South Vietnam, as was the case with N&S Korea, and as was the case with Afghanistan and their Pakistani retreats.

Everything that China tries to do in Taiwan, must cross the straits. This means that every single attempt to reinforce and resupply is vulnerable to being destroyed in-transit, and any force that does get landed is in danger of defeat in detail.

Basically, if the initial invasion wave fails, the war's over. If they make a successful landing, but the ships needed to support the invasion force get sunk, the war's over. If they keep supplies going, but the Taiwanese still manage to push the PLA back into the ocean or surrender, the war's over.

If the Chinese successfully perform an amphibious blitz and rapidly take Taiwan, the war's over in that case too.

The physical realities favor Taiwan over China in every way except numbers, and though numbers are entirely capable of throwing it in favor of the Chinese, it is by no means certain.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
What you fail to understand, is that the US was not militarily defeated in Korea, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam.

We won crushing military victories in each of these wars, even though in each case we had to project power literally across the entire world to get there.

What happened was political defeat. We simply did not have the will to fight, especially with our elite classes actively sabotaging us. Any war for Taiwan will be won or lost for the same reason.

Sailor X might not be the best at presenting his argument, but his perception of you as shilling for the PLA does seem to be accurate, given you're giving them credit for nonexistent military victories.

More importantly, the Straits of Taiwan make it so a 'forever war' is not functionally possible. North Vietnam shared a border with South Vietnam, as was the case with N&S Korea, and as was the case with Afghanistan and their Pakistani retreats.

Everything that China tries to do in Taiwan, must cross the straits. This means that every single attempt to reinforce and resupply is vulnerable to being destroyed in-transit, and any force that does get landed is in danger of defeat in detail.

Basically, if the initial invasion wave fails, the war's over. If they make a successful landing, but the ships needed to support the invasion force get sunk, the war's over. If they keep supplies going, but the Taiwanese still manage to push the PLA back into the ocean or surrender, the war's over.

If the Chinese successfully perform an amphibious blitz and rapidly take Taiwan, the war's over in that case too.

The physical realities favor Taiwan over China in every way except numbers, and though numbers are entirely capable of throwing it in favor of the Chinese, it is by no means certain.
Korea wasn't wasn't political loss.
We were killing the Chinese in waves, and were not even giving it our all during then. We still had a smaller force then we could have put there
 

History Learner

Well-known member
What you fail to understand, is that the US was not militarily defeated in Korea, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam.

Korea, sure, but it would come as a hell of a shock to the people of the former South Vietnam and the GIRoA the U.S. was not militarily defeated there given the end results and the fact they failed in every single category.

We won crushing military victories in each of these wars, even though in each case we had to project power literally across the entire world to get there.

What happened was political defeat. We simply did not have the will to fight, especially with our elite classes actively sabotaging us. Any war for Taiwan will be won or lost for the same reason.

Except we didn't, as I noted above, we failed in every single military strategic goal we laid out in Vietnam and Afghanistan. What you actually mean is we inflicted a high body count on the enemy in those conflicts but that meant fuck all in the end when we ended up loosing the overall warfare. This is why, for example, the whole obsession with body counts in Vietnam is universally lambasted; it doesn't matter how many bodies you stack up if you lose. The USSR had the highest casualties of WWII and we all know how that ended up for the Germans. You're also making the mistake of asserting there is a difference between political and military victory/defeat; there isn't and this has been univerally recognized as a concept since at least the 19th Century. As one man once put it:

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Sailor X might not be the best at presenting his argument, but his perception of you as shilling for the PLA does seem to be accurate, given you're giving them credit for nonexistent military victories.

He's not convincing because there is no basis to the argument when subjected to any sort of counter. You both call me a PRC shill because you literally can't refute any of my points, so your last resort is personal attack. If you feel I am wrong about Korea, how far is the Yalu from the current border? If you feel I am wrong about the successful PLA invasion and occupation of Hainan Island, tell me who has ruled the island since 1949?

More importantly, the Straits of Taiwan make it so a 'forever war' is not functionally possible. North Vietnam shared a border with South Vietnam, as was the case with N&S Korea, and as was the case with Afghanistan and their Pakistani retreats.

Everything that China tries to do in Taiwan, must cross the straits. This means that every single attempt to reinforce and resupply is vulnerable to being destroyed in-transit, and any force that does get landed is in danger of defeat in detail.

Basically, if the initial invasion wave fails, the war's over. If they make a successful landing, but the ships needed to support the invasion force get sunk, the war's over. If they keep supplies going, but the Taiwanese still manage to push the PLA back into the ocean or surrender, the war's over.

If the Chinese successfully perform an amphibious blitz and rapidly take Taiwan, the war's over in that case too.

The physical realities favor Taiwan over China in every way except numbers, and though numbers are entirely capable of throwing it in favor of the Chinese, it is by no means certain.

Except none of this has any basis in reality. You cite the existence of the Taiwanese Straits as some sort of gut punch that prevents China from winning such a conflict for undefined reasons, which is ironic because between Taiwan and the United States is the entire fucking Pacific Ocean. Every single issue you list here for China-besides not really existing-is magnified many times over for the United States. Unlike the U.S. the Chinese have multiple air bases within range of Taiwan to establish air superiority; the U.S. doesn't. The Chinese base of supply is less than 100 miles from the zone of combat; the closest U.S. base is Guam, which is quite literally almost the width of the United States away from the zone of action.

I think you need to take a step back and do some objective research on the matter, because you seem to have jingoistic perspective of the PLA as stuck in the 1950s with Human Wave tactics when the reality it is a modern, peer to peer power that either matches or exceeds the United States already in many categories. As far back as 2008, U.S. war games have been increasingly finding that they lose to the Chinese and nowadays this has been consistent in all war games. Indeed, U.S. Military officials have more or less said in the event of conflict Taiwan is in the same exact position of the Philippines in WWII; they can hold out, for a time, but then they lose. Unlike Imperial Japan, however, China has the industrial base to match the United States.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Korea, sure, but it would come as a hell of a shock to the people of the former South Vietnam and the GIRoA the U.S. was not militarily defeated there given the end results and the fact they failed in every single category.



Except we didn't, as I noted above, we failed in every single military strategic goal we laid out in Vietnam and Afghanistan. What you actually mean is we inflicted a high body count on the enemy in those conflicts but that meant fuck all in the end when we ended up loosing the overall warfare. This is why, for example, the whole obsession with body counts in Vietnam is universally lambasted; it doesn't matter how many bodies you stack up if you lose. The USSR had the highest casualties of WWII and we all know how that ended up for the Germans. You're also making the mistake of asserting there is a difference between political and military victory/defeat; there isn't and this has been univerally recognized as a concept since at least the 19th Century. As one man once put it:

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."



He's not convincing because there is no basis to the argument when subjected to any sort of counter. You both call me a PRC shill because you literally can't refute any of my points, so your last resort is personal attack. If you feel I am wrong about Korea, how far is the Yalu from the current border? If you feel I am wrong about the successful PLA invasion and occupation of Hainan Island, tell me who has ruled the island since 1949?



Except none of this has any basis in reality. You cite the existence of the Taiwanese Straits as some sort of gut punch that prevents China from winning such a conflict for undefined reasons, which is ironic because between Taiwan and the United States is the entire fucking Pacific Ocean. Every single issue you list here for China-besides not really existing-is magnified many times over for the United States. Unlike the U.S. the Chinese have multiple air bases within range of Taiwan to establish air superiority; the U.S. doesn't. The Chinese base of supply is less than 100 miles from the zone of combat; the closest U.S. base is Guam, which is quite literally almost the width of the United States away from the zone of action.

I think you need to take a step back and do some objective research on the matter, because you seem to have jingoistic perspective of the PLA as stuck in the 1950s with Human Wave tactics when the reality it is a modern, peer to peer power that either matches or exceeds the United States already in many categories. As far back as 2008, U.S. war games have been increasingly finding that they lose to the Chinese and nowadays this has been consistent in all war games. Indeed, U.S. Military officials have more or less said in the event of conflict Taiwan is in the same exact position of the Philippines in WWII; they can hold out, for a time, but then they lose. Unlike Imperial Japan, however, China has the industrial base to match the United States.
We weren't militarily defeated in either of them.
We were kicking ass in every situation presented in both conflicts.....
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Remind me whose flag flies over Kabul and Ho Chi Minh City, please.
Political loss.
Do I need to remind you of the numbers for killed for both sides?
Who has higher losses? The US sure doesn't.Military victory does not mean political victory.
If a flag flying over a country capital means they won...well the US won 1812 then. The french never lost during Napoleons time, since Paris was still flying the tricolor.
Italian campaign during ww2 was a loss as well then for the US, since the Italian flag flew not the US....
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Political loss.
Do I need to remind you of the numbers for killed for both sides?
Who has higher losses? The US sure doesn't.Military victory does not mean political victory.

The USSR had the highest casualties of WWII, with the Germans consistently inflicting higher losses upon them until 1945.....

Reichstag_flag_original.jpg

If a flag flying over a country capital means they won...well the US won 1812 then. The french never lost during Napoleons time, since Paris was still flying the tricolor.
Italian campaign during ww2 was a loss as well then for the US, since the Italian flag flew not the US....

So the House of Bonaparte is still in control of France and the Italian Fascist Party remains in control of Italy? You might also want to look up what the Italian flag looks like right now as compared to 1941 lol.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Political loss.
Do I need to remind you of the numbers for killed for both sides?
Who has higher losses? The US sure doesn't.Military victory does not mean political victory.
If a flag flying over a country capital means they won...well the US won 1812 then. The french never lost during Napoleons time, since Paris was still flying the tricolor.
Italian campaign during ww2 was a loss as well then for the US, since the Italian flag flew not the US....

The Italians surrendered and switched sides to save their own asses I dont think they count.
 

Vaermina

Well-known member
Except none of this has any basis in reality. You cite the existence of the Taiwanese Straits as some sort of gut punch that prevents China from winning such a conflict for undefined reasons, which is ironic because between Taiwan and the United States is the entire fucking Pacific Ocean. Every single issue you list here for China-besides not really existing-is magnified many times over for the United States. Unlike the U.S. the Chinese have multiple air bases within range of Taiwan to establish air superiority; the U.S. doesn't. The Chinese base of supply is less than 100 miles from the zone of combat; the closest U.S. base is Guam, which is quite literally almost the width of the United States away from the zone of action.
Three things you're wrong about.

1) The US has multiple military bases in Okinawa.

2) Taiwan has capable enough anti-air systems that approaching the island via plane would be a death sentence for most of China's air force.

3) Any action the US takes would be backed up by Taiwan. While any action China takes will be contesting Taiwan.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Political loss.
Do I need to remind you of the numbers for killed for both sides?
Who has higher losses? The US sure doesn't.Military victory does not mean political victory.
If a flag flying over a country capital means they won...well the US won 1812 then. The french never lost during Napoleons time, since Paris was still flying the tricolor.
Italian campaign during ww2 was a loss as well then for the US, since the Italian flag flew not the US....
A political L is still an L, and just means we wasted a lot of soldiers lives for effectively no gain.

Vietnam was a clusterfuck that we allowed to happen because the French (or more specifically de Gaulle) wanted to diminish US military power because it viewed itself as a legit competitor for world power (France still had delusions of empire then), so they demanded we save them after they fucked up and pissed off the population that had just beaten back the IJA a few decades earlier.

If we had told de Gaulle to go fuck himself and let France leave NATO (which ended up happening anyway, I remind you) we would have never had to send so many flag draped coffins home in what amounted to a wasted effort. Though part of it is also on Nixon for fucking up the Paris talks with N. Vietnam.
Three things you're wrong about.

1) The US has multiple military bases in Okinawa.

2) Taiwan has capable enough anti-air systems that approaching the island via plane would be a death sentence for most of China's air force.

3) Any action the US takes would be backed up by Taiwan. While any action China takes will be contesting Taiwan.
Also, Japan and Taiwan have a separate defense pact from the one the US and Japan or the US and Taiwan have.

Japan also has recently been rebuilding it's old (like WW1 era or before) alliances with European powers apart from the US, even if the Brits seem...wish-washy on commiting to breaking the 12-km line around the sand castles China has built.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Three things you're wrong about.

1) The US has multiple military bases in Okinawa.

Sure, although in this case it was in terms of national territory to the center of battle. If you want to cite the Okinawa bases, sure, but they have the same issues as Taiwan; they're far from resupply and under the Chinese air/missile umbrella.

2) Taiwan has capable enough anti-air systems that approaching the island via plane would be a death sentence for most of China's air force.

No, but even taking that at face value for the sake of the argument the better question is how much ammunition do they have for them? Because they will run out and then logistics kick in.

3) Any action the US takes would be backed up by Taiwan. While any action China takes will be contesting Taiwan.

Okay, and? Doesn't change the material realities of the battlefield.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
The USSR had the highest casualties of WWII, with the Germans consistently inflicting higher losses upon them until 1945.....

Reichstag_flag_original.jpg



So the House of Bonaparte is still in control of France and the Italian Fascist Party remains in control of Italy? You might also want to look up what the Italian flag looks like right now as compared to 1941 lol.
I never said anything about who controls it.
You said flags. I am telling you when a country was defeated BY America. And the American flag was never put up.

BTW, America took out Japan with less losses.

guess what, USSR also had support from America by dividing the Eastern front into a two front war.

but obviously, more deaths equals win, wait...how did did US win WW2 then? How did Nirth Korea and China fail to take the whole pen? They obviously had more numbers....
The Italians surrendered and switched sides to save their own asses I dont think they count.
I am pointing out he keeps using "Flag flying over city" as an example of winning a war. I was giving examples where the US won but didn't fly thier flag over a city.
Therefore the US never win those wars
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Korea, sure, but it would come as a hell of a shock to the people of the former South Vietnam and the GIRoA the U.S. was not militarily defeated there given the end results and the fact they failed in every single category.



Except we didn't, as I noted above, we failed in every single military strategic goal we laid out in Vietnam and Afghanistan. What you actually mean is we inflicted a high body count on the enemy in those conflicts but that meant fuck all in the end when we ended up loosing the overall warfare. This is why, for example, the whole obsession with body counts in Vietnam is universally lambasted; it doesn't matter how many bodies you stack up if you lose. The USSR had the highest casualties of WWII and we all know how that ended up for the Germans. You're also making the mistake of asserting there is a difference between political and military victory/defeat; there isn't and this has been univerally recognized as a concept since at least the 19th Century. As one man once put it:

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."



He's not convincing because there is no basis to the argument when subjected to any sort of counter. You both call me a PRC shill because you literally can't refute any of my points, so your last resort is personal attack. If you feel I am wrong about Korea, how far is the Yalu from the current border? If you feel I am wrong about the successful PLA invasion and occupation of Hainan Island, tell me who has ruled the island since 1949?



Except none of this has any basis in reality. You cite the existence of the Taiwanese Straits as some sort of gut punch that prevents China from winning such a conflict for undefined reasons, which is ironic because between Taiwan and the United States is the entire fucking Pacific Ocean. Every single issue you list here for China-besides not really existing-is magnified many times over for the United States. Unlike the U.S. the Chinese have multiple air bases within range of Taiwan to establish air superiority; the U.S. doesn't. The Chinese base of supply is less than 100 miles from the zone of combat; the closest U.S. base is Guam, which is quite literally almost the width of the United States away from the zone of action.

I think you need to take a step back and do some objective research on the matter, because you seem to have jingoistic perspective of the PLA as stuck in the 1950s with Human Wave tactics when the reality it is a modern, peer to peer power that either matches or exceeds the United States already in many categories. As far back as 2008, U.S. war games have been increasingly finding that they lose to the Chinese and nowadays this has been consistent in all war games. Indeed, U.S. Military officials have more or less said in the event of conflict Taiwan is in the same exact position of the Philippines in WWII; they can hold out, for a time, but then they lose. Unlike Imperial Japan, however, China has the industrial base to match the United States.
Do you think we are stupid. You are using this as example of a successful Amphibious invasion.

Hainan-map.jpg


You are comparing eyeshot distance of Mainland China to this

taiwan-map-1tu1dhz.gif


The taking of the former is not even to be considered as proof as a proper amphibious invasion. When you can literally.........

5c8f8c76a3106c65ffffce70.jpeg


Build a freaking bridge between the Mainland and the Island. Take your stupid BS elsewhere. You are talking out of your ass when you talk about China pulling off an Amphibious Invasion. This ranks as mere river crossing distance.
 
Last edited:

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
That is a literal stones throw.

Compare that, woth D Day, or Iwo Jima/Okinawa, Guadalcanal...
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Do you think we are stupid. You are using this as example of a successful Amphibious invasion.

Hainan-map.jpg


You are comparing eyeshot distance of Mainland China to this

taiwan-map-1tu1dhz.gif


The taking of the former is not even to be considered as proof as a proper amphibious invasion. When you can literally.........

5c8f8c76a3106c65ffffce70.jpeg


Build a freaking bridge between the Mainland and the Island. Take you stupid BS elsewhere. You are talking out of your ass when you talk about China pulling off an Amphibious Invasion. This ranks as mere river crossing distance.

Would you care to cite what bridge existed in 1949 lol? Nice goal post shift, by the way, since your original claim was they could not do any amphibious landing.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Would you care to cite what bridge existed in 1949 lol? Nice goal post shift, by the way, since your original claim was they could not do any amphibious landing.
........................... Are you freaking serious. What you have just said is the single dumbest thing that has been said in this entire thread. At no point in time did you put forth a logical rebuttal. All of us are a lot dumber for reading this point. We award you a blank stare. And may God have mercy on your soul.
 

DarthOne

☦️
The Taliban have access to US military aircraft. Now what happens?


WASHINGTON — Once the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s airfield in Kandahar on Friday, it didn’t take long for photos to appear on social media showing Taliban fighters posing with military helicopters such as U.S.-made Black Hawks and Soviet-made Mi-17s.

After the group took over Mazar-i-Sharif airport this weekend, more photos followed, this time of Taliban members standing next to an A-29 attack plane and MD-530 utility helicopter.

Now, with Afghanistan under Taliban control, the question is no longer whether the organization will gain access to the Afghan air force’s inventory of U.S.-provided planes and helicopters, but what it plans to do with them — and what the U.S. military can do in response.

The Afghan air force operated a total of 211 aircraft, with about 167 planes and helicopters available for use as of June 30, according to a July report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

So far, the Defense Department has not confirmed how many of those aircraft have been captured by the Taliban, how many of that sum are still operable and how many aircraft have been safely flown by Afghan air force pilots to relative safety in neighboring countries.

During a briefing at the Pentagon on Monday, Maj. Gen. Hank Taylor, the Joint Staff deputy director for regional operations, said he had no information about whether the U.S. military would take steps to prevent aircraft or other military equipment from being captured or used by the Taliban.

Bradley Bowman, a former Black Hawk pilot who served in Afghanistan and has sharply criticized the U.S. withdrawal, told Defense News “there’s no doubt that they’ve captured hundreds of Humvees and artillery and other equipment — and aircraft.”

“This should be deeply, deeply troubling to Americans, not only because we help fund those and provide those, but because how the Taliban could benefit,” he added.

As the Biden administration considers its path forward, its biggest priority should be the safe evacuation of Americans from Afghanistan, Bowman said. Then, it should destroy the U.S. equipment remaining in Afghanistan, as well as all planes and helicopters left behind by the Afghan air force.

“If we do that now, then I could see the Taliban changing its disposition toward the evacuation operations in Kabul,” he said. “So get all the Americans out, do as best as we can getting our Afghan partners out.
“Once that’s done … then why the heck wouldn’t we destroy every rotary wing and fixed aircraft that the Taliban has captured? I think we absolutely should.”

The Afghan air force operated 23 A-29 attack planes, four C-130 cargo planes and a total of 33 militarized versions of the Cessna Caravan, some of which were configured for a light attack mission, according to the special inspector report.

It also flew about 150 helicopters, which included the American-made UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter and armed MD-530s, as well as the Soviet Mi-17, which the Afghan air force was in the process of retiring.

Of the Afghan air force’s inventory, perhaps the most advanced is the A-29 Super Tucano, a turboprop attack plane built by Brazilian aerospace manufacturer Embraer and modified by Sierra Nevada, an American defense firm that integrates the aircraft with U.S.-made sensors and weapons.

Unlike a fighter jet built for speed and maneuverability in a dogfight, the A-29 is optimized for counterinsurgency missions where an aircraft needs to fly slow and low to strike targets on the ground. The aircraft can be flown by relatively inexperienced pilots and operated in austere environments.

Those characteristics made it a great fit for the Afghan air force, which was being built from the ground up, but it’s not technology that can threaten the U.S. military in future engagements with the Taliban, according to Gen. Mark Kelly, who leads Air Combat Command.

“It’s understandable for people to be concerned about any capability falling into the hands of folks where we don’t know exactly how they’re going to use it, who are going to use it against, whether that’s an M16 [rifle] or whether that’s an A-29,” Kelly told Defense News in an Aug. 16 interview.

“But suffice to say that the technology that’s in the A-29 is not cutting-edge technology,” he added. “When you look at the airplane’s range and speed and computer power and lifting capability … it’s not something that, frankly, concerns us.”

While the Taliban could seek to sell captured aircraft, none of the planes or helicopters operated by the Afghan air force contain sensitive technologies that would be useful to nations like China or Russia, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group.

“Truth be told, if the Russians or Chinese wanted to get their hands on a Super Tucano or early model Black Hawk it wouldn’t be that hard,” he said. “They were equipped in a pretty low-tech way.”

The Taliban would face a long list of obstacles if it sought to operate the equipment itself, using the remaining airplanes and helicopters to form the basis of an ad-hoc air force.

First, the Taliban aren’t trained pilots capable of safely flying the aircraft, using its sensors and loading and deploying weapons, Kelly said.

“”They may actually be able to get it airborne,” he said, “but they’d probably be more dangerous to their own wellbeing than they would [be] to people on the ground.”

Eventually, the Taliban could find qualified pilots, “but as far as a threat to the region, I don’t think it’s something that’s a credible threat that we are that overly concerned about,” Kelly added.

An even larger hurdle for the Taliban would be the cost, expertise and logistics associated with maintaining the aircraft, an expensive proposition that involves servicing aircraft before and after flight, conducting repairs and buying spare parts.
However, it’s not an impossible problem to solve, Bowman said.

“I’m not naïve enough to not be able to envision a scenario where maybe — maybe — they could find pilots, that maybe the former Afghan air force pilots would be coerced to come over to their side,” Bowman said. “And it’s not inconceivable that foreign powers who aren’t aligned with the United States could help.”

But Aboulafia noted use of the aircraft’s weapons — either on the citizens of Afghanistan or against other nations in the region — could ultimately undermine the Taliban’s goal of maintaining control of the country.

“The more they use conventional military equipment, the more they make themselves a target. If they were to make trouble, it would be doing what they did before 9/11: harboring terror groups,” he said. “There’s obviously not a lot of organized internal resistance in the country. They don’t seem eager to pick a fight with countries near them, and it wouldn’t go well if they did.”

The ones that got away
Not all military aircraft were left in Afghanistan for the Taliban to recover.

On Sunday night, three Afghan air force aircraft and two helicopters — which were transporting 143 troops — landed safely in Tajikistan after receiving permission from the country’s authorities, reported The New York Times.

The Afghan air force has also sought safe haven in Uzbekistan, although it is unclear how many aircraft and personnel have flown into the country over the past several days.

On Monday, Uzbekistan’s Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed that 22 unspecified military aircraft and 24 helicopters — collectively carrying 585 soldiers and airmen — flew into the country on Aug. 14 and 15, Uzbekistan’s Podrobno news agency reported.

The office also stated that three more A-29 attack aircraft requested permission to land on Aug. 15 and were given MiG-29 escorts by the Uzbek military, but one MiG-29 and A-29 collided during flight. The pilots of both aircraft ejected safely.

On Aug. 16, the office rescinded its statement in full, providing no elaboration on how many Afghan aircraft had landed in the country.


The Taliban (thereby China) now has access to US military aircraft, vehicles, helicopters, tanks, and MRAPs, from hastily abandoned American bases. The Chinese will now have scans and detection/targeting information for US Military vehicles. (assuming they didn't already have that thanks to our government and military being lousy with Chinese agents and informants)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top