Thanks! sadly i forget author,but he wrote how much better rhodesians were compared to Portugal.
But,i belive you here,such is human nature after all to consider ourselves better.
Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
But,i belive you here,such is human nature after all to consider ourselves better.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I’m British you idiot. My country’s military history is a tad more impressive than Portugal’s, and by dint of our nuclear arsenal we are still one of the big boys.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Oh laddie such a mouthfoul of words you can use.
Well that's because your adversaries tended to be barely developed tribes, but when its peer on peer you guys didn't fare that much better.
Oh really? The same country that is now run by Hindu, with its capital run by a progressive pro-groomer Pakistani and one of its regions run by a self-hating "National" "Party" whose PM is a dictatorial Pakistani? The same country that got lead to a war by a lying Labour neoliberal scum ? The same country whose capital has been openly bought by Persian Gulf Arabs?
You really one of the big boys?
Give me a break. The French and the Turks are more credible threat as countries than your "United" "Kingdom".
If I had to use a methapor your country is the brothel keeper, a right hand at best if not a goon.
I am more scared than Biden's clique than Sunak, Johnson or Truss.
paulobrito
Well-known member
And what is the military history of a country to do with one can comment on the military capabilities/feats of another country?
To me, that smells like shit.
To me, that smells like shit.
I was blunt and honest, not strawmaning. You said you did not make the argument that China were harmless babies, I pointed to and clarified what argument I was criticizing with that description. The most I was guilty there of was hyperbole. I obviously was not arguing you were saying the Chinese are literally harmless babies. Its a common enough phrase that I assumed there was no confusion there.
Me summarizing my understanding of your argument is not strawmaning.
A position and argument I was quite clear I found implausible and unsupported. I might have been very minorly rude and annoyed, but overall I think I was pretty mild. You have also repeatedly insulted me, including here accusing me of bad faith, and made less than completely polite comments to me in this. None of which I cared particularly about until this final attempt to insult me and storm off with a false sense of moral superiority and offense over me daring to disagree with you, and not living up to a level of decorum you yourself aren't following.
Obviously you wouldn't. Its part of deterrent for interfering in Taiwan, its important to the effect that they're presence is known. So several bases are under threat if the US gets involved. Otherwise, its 1-2 weeks of overland travel to get there, so the flow would have several weeks at least of travel, plus probably a month or two for the whole force to arrive.
Plus of course in a big war Iran probably takes at least a few weeks, if not months, for them to mobilize, and even in the largest Chinese commitment Iranians would be probably at least 50% of local useful offensive forces. So, not counting Iraq or Syrian militias, or any other Arab militaries that might be mostly passive. At least in situations where Turkey doesn't flip completely or Russia can pull several army groups out of its ass to commit to the middle East. Not impossible, but not likely either.
The US spent several months building up for Gulf though, so it probably doesn't matter all that much. US might be able to build up faster, but in a pre-war build up, the speed difference probably doesn't matter that much, and Iran is big enough that it will take time to beat, giving a chance for chinese flows to overwhelm American stocks.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No.
When I explicitly clarify my position 'X that you said is not my position, here is my position,' and you say 'So you're saying X is your position,' you do not get to say this is 'minorly rude' or 'pretty mild.'
This is you calling me a liar to my internet face, and being condescending while you're at it.
Up until the 'babies' remark, I was consigning this as 'very frustrating, but we're probably operating on different wavelengths as the primary problem.'
This is where you made it explicit that it is not a communication problem, it is not a 'you're coming out of a different social group with different well-known facts' thing, it is just straight up you saying 'I get to say what your argument is, even after you say 'no it is not that.''
If you're going to claim that's not what you meant, and the real problem is that you're communicating extremely poorly?
You're asking me to give you the benefit of the doubt, after you just called me a liar to my face in a starkly condescending way. What reason do I have to do that?
I did not call you a liar. I clarified what argument I was referring to as "communists are harmless babies". Didn't you argue that the Chinese were worse than Iraqis, the harmless babies of military competence and ability? Since Iraqis, especially Saddam Iraqis, are harmless babies who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, to suggest the Communists are on the same level, or worse, naturally means the Communists are also harmless babies, on the scale of military effectiveness.
The Iraqis are the ones who manage to lose with tanks to foot infantry without AT weapons. The Communists performing at the level of Iraqis is to be a harmless baby as fighters. There's not much room to perform worse. Actual Iranian child soldiers seem to have out performed Iraqis.
This is a good general reminder of the truly awful level Arab armies performed at, the classic "Why Arabs Lose Wars" article:
Why Arabs Lose Wars
Arabic-speaking armies have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s.1 Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming
And then there's also this post and general thread where IXJac draws from an Arabs at War book, detailing the terrible level of performance of Iraqis.
Meanwhile, I don't think the Chinese have ever performed to that level. Even in Korea they showed signifigantly more skill and initiative.
Is that the discontent, that when your comparing Communists to Arabs, I think your describing a much, much lower level of ability than you meant? Because if you do think the Chinese will perform to the level of Iraqis, they are harmless babies, like the Iraqis.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I said 'I do not believe X.'
You said 'You believe X.'
That's as clear cut as it gets.
Me: So you believe x?
You: No, I believe y.
Me: But x=y. Thus believing y is the same thing as believing x.
Or, on the specific argument of Iraqi vs Chinese performance.
Premise1 (mine) : Iraqis are harmless babies
Premise 2 (yours): Chinese are the same as Iraqis
Conclusion: Therefore, Chinese are harmless babies
I believe premise 2 is wrong the Chinese are not the same as the Iraqis.
Therefore, the Chinese might not be harmless babies.
None of that is accusing you of lying. Its an attack on the logic of your argument, not your character. Now, my premise might be wrong, your premise might be wrong, or I misunderstood your argument.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Yes, because 'harmless babies' sling cruise missiles, have Generation 4 and 5 combat aircraft, etc etc.
Because I talk about specifically how certain threats need to be worked around when they come from 'harmless babies.'
Because 'we don't know how dangerous this is or is not' is something you say about harmless babies.
Saying 'harmless babies' and 'expectation of poor military performance' are the same thing is nonsense.
X does *not* = Y.
I mean, the Iraqis had (relatively) modern Tanks, aircraft, and Scuds. Harmless babies with tanks and aircraft might indeed hurt someone else, occasionally, partially by accident. Infinite monkeys on typewriters kind of thing. Plus some ability to make up for total incapability of the Army with extreme micromanaging of the Upper Staff levels to fake skill in 1-2 day increments.
As I clarified in my initial post, when I said harmless babies, I meant Gulf War Iraqi performance. And then explained why I believed Iraqis were worthy of such disparaging remarks. Hyperbole, but a pretty standard one.
Thus, if you think the Chinese will perform at the level of Iraq, then the Chinese are being assumed to be harmless babies, as I mean it.
The counter to my argument there is to argue either the Iraqis weren't harmless babies as far as soldiers go, or concede the Chinese are not going to perform on the level of the Iraqis. Which means the Gulf war is not going to be a great point to measure expected American performance, and we can expect something closer to Korean, Vietnamese, or Serbian performance. Or WWII. All of which are a much, much higher level of performance than Iraqis.
This whole thing is a disagreement over whether x=y, not me suggesting your lying. I appologise if that wasn't clear from the beginning.
Do we need that red herring?
Do we need the false binary where China either performs like Arabs or alternatively, has a fully competent military?
Modern Russia is an interesting comparison, a country with "paper navy" trying to compete with NATO, but in practice losing major warships to a country with no navy at all.
Those are as i mentioned terrible analogies, because a potential US-China war will absolutely not be a guerilla heavy land war on part of China, while USA tries to meet poorly qualified nation building political goals with limited means and within a very restrictive ROE and international media whining about being too harsh on the other side's civilians, truly the kryptonite of any post-60's war the West waged.
And if the western leadership somehow manages to make this a conflict of such pattern, then such a feat of sheer idiocy will be synonymous with fighting the war with one hand tied and highly divergent from the expected air-sea war around Taiwan or something.
If you take WW2 Soviet Navy (Japanese not being communists, and naval warfare being different from land warfare) and its rather little known performance (largerly due to how unimpressive it was), that may be indeed an interesting yardstick to measure it by.
Last edited:
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Iraqis had commanders that were shit and of course anyone with a sense of self preservation wouldn't care to win a war.
Though the main difference with the Chinese is that the Iraqis had an extremely authoritarian political elite but not as collectivist AND totalitarian as the the Chinese, with the mainland always having a collectivist, one-man-centric outlook that couldn't and wouldn't allow too many singularities among its own folk, so the Chinese even with rocks as their main weapons are not to be handled with silk kids gloves.
Though the main difference with the Chinese is that the Iraqis had an extremely authoritarian political elite but not as collectivist AND totalitarian as the the Chinese, with the mainland always having a collectivist, one-man-centric outlook that couldn't and wouldn't allow too many singularities among its own folk, so the Chinese even with rocks as their main weapons are not to be handled with silk kids gloves.
We wouldn't handle them with kid gloves.
We would handle them like the threat we see them as.
Which is an actual peer threat and that means gloves come off.
We would use the entire might of our AF and Navy to destroy what we deem as critical to thier fighting force.
Also, thier political party is heavily invovled in thier military.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
With the current state of the Armed forces of the US I have some genuine doubt there would be anyone willing to die to fight China.
Your armed forces are also heavily politicized as well considering who is Secretary of Defense and how involved the arms industry meddles in your politics.
Your armed forces are also heavily politicized as well considering who is Secretary of Defense and how involved the arms industry meddles in your politics.
There is no doubt.
Everyone looking in from the outside only sees the negative.
But on the inside, we are taking China VERY serious.
We have increased trainings with allied nations in the Pacific for a reason.
The arms industry thrives off war.
But it also focuses on what rhe DoD and Congress tell it to.
Like solder survival over quantity.
Just because we are being politicized, doesn't mean our adversary, WHO HAS PARRY MEMBERS OVERWATCHING THE GENERALS, wouldn't do worse.
In war politicians make small decisions for us, u til it nears the end.
For China every decision is done by the party foremost
It was made as a counter to a specific claim that the Chinese would perform worse than the Iraqis. That is hardly a read herring to respond to a specific claim. To change the analogy, confirming whether or not your playing against a middle school team, doesn't clarify whether its a high school, college, or pro team. But, if the argument is your taking a pro team (which the US undoubtedly is) against a middle school team, the sensible thing to argue is that its at least not a middle school team.
Losing ships to someone without a navy isn't really that much of a shocking achievement. The US has done that too. Specifically against the Koreans and Chinese actually.
Which is why mine warfare seems to have been one of the lead strategies of the Chinese navy, at least up to about 2010.
I'm not sure Korea is particularly categorizable as a guerilla war. Vietnam beat us through conventional operations, not the guerilla part of the war. And I'm not sure Yugoslavia can be categorized as a guerilla war, at least by any definition that the WWII U-boat campaign would also not be a guerilla war. Or Rome's strategy against Hannibal post after several disasterous battles showed decisive battle against Hannibal's army in Italy was not the winning move.
Poorly qualified nation buildings goals also don't match most of those listed wars, and wouldn't matter there for how effective America's opponents there fought. ROE I've become more certain is a bit of a cope. Your also likely not to have unlimited ROE in a China war either, for very sensible reasons.
I guess it depends on what exactly we mean by guerilla war, but naval war that doesn't revolve around head on confrontation with the US Navy is perfectly possible, and has been China's longstanding Naval and land doctrine.
General military and societal performance actually probably is a useful measure of how they are likely to perform in the Naval setting. Especially when your talking about a society with extensive naval experience, like the Chinese. One for example might argue landlocked Moscow doesn't have any good pool of people and expertise to draw from on how sailing works. One can't suggest that about the Chinese, with the 1-2nd largest merchant fleet, and literally millions of sailors and fishermen.
China's manpower pool of people who are familiar with boats and sailing is if anything likely deeper than the US's. So there's not even much basis to argue China would particularly underperform at sea compared to anything else they did.
The bigger difference is that whoever it will be against, it will be a game of full contact kickboxing, not soccer where you can't even intentionally kick the enemy when the referee is looking.
Tug and minsweepers. Nothing even close to losing a friggin flagship of the Pacific Fleet.
Korea was highly limited by politics around the UN, rather than USA actually going to fuck up the other side with all means available. MacArthur wanted that and he got told off.
No, Vietnam's conventional operations won only against South Vietnam, and only after US withdrew even material support, learn history, Vietnam beat US public's morale with US media working on the communist side, on the battlefield Vietnam got generally beaten by US forces.
Vietnam had quite a bit. Serbia in the end was a victory, but like Korea, it was highly bound by the UN politics around them, with destroying the enemy not even being the main objective.
Yeah, with a sufficiently retarded ROE, with special mention to the classic, arbitrary lines on the enemy state's map where the enemy gets told that none of their assets will be hit, US government can fail at any war it wants.
But that's a political problem, not one related to military strategy, force or technology.
But is the US Naval doctrine going to play along? Ships, unlike "little green men" are something, especially in the age of modern technology, that has clear identities, and effective attacks on them are a pretty clear matter with clear escalation steps to take.
Again, sufficient levels of retardation can waste that, but assuming US government at the time won't be exceptionally retarded, confrontation with US Navy is going to automatically turn into a head on confrontation within *minutes* of certain lines being crossed. Coded messages will be sent, and missiles and torpedoes will be going out fast.
No, its not written in stone anywhere. Countries can have pretty dramatically different organizational state of different branches of their military. British Army vs Navy in WW2, or even more so, Israel's Army/Air Force/Navy histories.
What's their extensive naval experience, and i mean in modern warfare?
A history of sailing has little to do with running a navy nowdays, if it did, Spain and Britain would still be naval superpowers USA would be learning from but it's the other way around if anything, we're talking missiles, air defense systems, radars, this sort of shit war on sea is fought with (and Moskva sank because most of theirs worked only on paper, it's not like they crashed the ship out of stress).
So, is Chinese military very meritocratic and immune to such silly things as nepotism and subordinates lying to higher ups massively as nothing works?
Definitely will help them handle their lifeboats under stress.
But what's their experience with launching and intercepting missiles? How battle tested their equipment is? How good are their radars (they only made their first 70's AEGIS ripoff a decade ago)? What's their electronic industry like? Can they even make a decent jet fighter engine?
Point in case, in 2003 they had a submarine disaster on probably an extra-basic level of training failure worthy of a third world country, suggesting competence no better than Russian, if not worse.
There are rumors another one happened recently.
Guess submarines aren't something age of sail experience translates well to, yet submarines and carriers are the true killer weapons of modern naval warfare.
Type 093 submarine - Wikipedia
Last edited: