China can wait. The Army’s focus should be Europe.

[leadcounsel]

I think that comes down to what you consider "success". The 2nd Gulf War was "successful", other campaigns were not. This wasn't due to capability but more how and what resources were deployed and in what capacity.

But, was it? I was there 4x. It was a series of short lived victories from 1991 thru our worn-out welcome departure in 2011, my last tour. It was a money hole of over $1 trillion, some 5000 US deaths, hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths and injuries (I saw many examples in my job) and untold destruction. What did we accomplish? We are not particularly welcomed there, the CCCI issued an arrest warrant for our former US President for crimes in hitting an Iranian terrorist there, and Iraq is now a trade partner with China accepting the Yuan for oil. I hate to say it but we lost Iraq, it just took 20 years of atrocious mismanagement and policies. And did more harm to ourselves in the process.

Vietnam is another example, fighting a ground war against guerrillas; sending American boys over there to die in the jungle because bombing it into oblivion wasn't a palatable strategy.

The middle east could have been turned into a sheet of glass. It wasn't because that's not seen as a proportionate or humane strategy; it's not proper "conflict etiquette" and would be universally condemned. Fighting disparate rebel groups/factions/pockets that are utilizing guerrilla tactics with conventional forces designed to engage other conventional forces isn't going to be pretty. Drone strikes were more effective.

I think we need to be careful in judging a country's capability based solely on their ability to project military might and their dabbling in these foreign campaigns in a limited capacity. In a SHTF scenario with another large power the strategy would be clearly quite different.

You raise some excellent points. However, I would go a step further and say Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were almost entirely diplomatic and foreign policy failures from the start, many predicated on outright false flags, propaghanda and lies. The question is not "how should be fight these guerillas or terrorists," but rather "should we," and also, "when we kill them are we just creating more of them?" That's a valid question. Because every innocent person or perceived enemy fighter killed, did in fact create an entire family against us.

 

[leadcounsel]

Absolutely. Plus, we absolutely decimated Iraq in OIF. The shortcomings came about due to the insurgency and immense amount of foreign terrorists filtering into the country to attack us. We're a great invading force, not so much at peacekeeping and rebuilding....of course, standing armies are not built for that so it makes sense for what happened.

Turns out when you decimate a nation, occupy it, create hardships for the people, kill or injure 100s of thousands of innocent people, install a regime, you actually create most of the fighters you are then fighting. As an OIF vet with 4 tours, I can say with confidence we did a lot of good there and eliminated a lot of very bad people. But we also created a lot of very bad people. It's extremely complex, but in short while it was well intended it was a failure of policies and execution.

 

[leadcounsel]

10 - 20 years and there both done. They won't have a large enough population to support themselves let alone fight foreign wars.

Seriosly - do your own research. They have no young people. It takes about 2.1 birth per woman to maintain a population. I think there birth rate is 1.3 - and has been for decades. Not to mention they have a huge gender imbalance problem. So its not just that they don't have enough children. They don't have enough young people to make children.

China was able to industrialize so fast because they had a huge glut of young labor. That labor is old now. There is no one to replace it. There not resource rich. There not high tech. There entire system is run by one person making the decisions. What could possibly go wrong?

Do you think world superpower leaders know less than this and are unable to solve this problem? Even if remotely accurate, which I dispute, both nations have created policies to increase pro-creation. So starting today in 15 years these aging population arguments will be solved.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/putin-offers-russian-mothers-cash-bonus-if-they-have-10-kids/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/business/economy/china-reproductive-rights-women.html

 

[tyman]

Turns out when you decimate a nation, occupy it, create hardships for the people, kill or injure 100s of thousands of innocent people, install a regime, you actually create most of the fighters you are then fighting. As an OIF vet with 4 tours, I can say with confidence we did a lot of good there and eliminated a lot of very bad people. But we also created a lot of very bad people. It's extremely complex, but in short while it was well intended it was a failure of policies and execution.

There's always going to be a creation of fighters when one country goes into another. It doesn't matter the reason(s). And the biggest failure of policies and execution was Bremer and the CPA disbanding and gutting the government. Absolutely despicable and unforgivable.

We went into Baghdad in late 2005, right as the Shi'ite police death squads started rearing their head, to which the Sunnis responded in kind with numerous market bombings, a nice vicious circle. In the middle of 2006, Biden and Levin visited and we escorted them around...that was fun.

 

[Jetronic]

China imports like 80% of their energy inputs and 50% of their food inputs. Naval blockade and China will be starving in the dark in a few months.

That kinda thing led to Pearl Harbor and the WW2 pacific theatre. So don't even consider that unless you understand what the end result could be. It won't be the chinese navy attacking Guam or Hawaii though. We might all be going back to the stone age.

 

[PandaBear]

There are energy pipelines around the globe. And Russia (150M people) is among the largest energy producers. China (1.4B people) is engaging Russia to build pipelines to move energy there. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-...Pipeline-Deal-Could-Be-Reached-This-Year.html

Is the US prepared to bomb that one?

Do you want a real nuclear war because 2 of your "potential" enemies are trading?

Japan also wants that pipeline build, just that it completely bypass China before reaching the pacific port so China cannot blockade Russia to Japan's route. If you bomb that you bet Japan is not going to like that one bit.

You know who's the most angry when Nord Stream pipeline got blown up? Germany, not our enemy. If we blew up the Russia to China pipeline who do you think is the most angry? I'm sure Japan would be one.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Do you think world superpower leaders know less than this and are unable to solve this problem? Even if remotely accurate, which I dispute, both nations have created policies to increase pro-creation. So starting today in 15 years these aging population arguments will be solved.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/putin-offers-russian-mothers-cash-bonus-if-they-have-10-kids/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/business/economy/china-reproductive-rights-women.html

Russia has been doing these kind of programs since before the USSR collapsed - never worked there. I think its Sweden - but some Euro country has complete cradle to grave - 2 years of maternity leave, free daycare, money, etc - I think they made it to 1.8. The US I think is 1.7 - not even close to enough but with massive imigration were holding our own for now.

Is it possible it works in China. I suppose its not impossible - just highly unlikely

BTW - these are not my ideas - these are from a number of professional demographic and geopolitical analysts - the most prominant being Peter Zeihan. Do your own research. Form your own opinions. Don't listen to the talking heads on TV - or me for that matter. Knowledge is freedom.

 

[leadcounsel]

Is it possible it works in China. I suppose its not impossible - just highly unlikely

Why wouldn't it work? People like procreating and it's among one of the most fundamental DNA hard wiring. It seems that among all of a nation's real problems, getting people to procreate is not particularly difficult.

Peter Zeihan.

I have listened to many of his interviews, podcasts, etc. to try to decipher his predictions about China. To be kind, he's incorrect on his prediction that a nation like China with it's resources, perhaps one of the oldest civilizations on earth, cannot solve this simple problem but will instead be "gone" in 10 years. I'm reminded of all the climate alarmist predictions that not only never come true, but the opposite tends to happen. No, Mr. Zeihan, to be kind, China is not going to be gone in 10 years as he has predicted. It is truthfully such an absurd proposition it's like wasting time arguing with flat earthers.

 

[GON]

It as amazing, almost every published western "expert" on China since the 1990s has been wrong. Dead wrong.

The only published expert on China that his been 100 percent right over the last three decades is China itself. It has accomplished every strategic objective it published. China has not had to revise a single objective, not even extend a single timeline.. Not one.

I guess the only thing China has been wrong about, is that it is achieved almost all of its strategic objectives ahead of the schedule it published.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Why wouldn't it work?

Because it has worked no where else, ever.

To be kind, he's incorrect on his prediction that a nation like China with it's resource

He has a full presentation from Farmcon 6 years ago on Youtube. I Pretty much everything he predicted has happened so far.

China's resource that propelled them into the 21st century was there glut of cheap labor. Thats gone.

Make no mistake, I am not saying we will do great, I just am not betting on China either.

 

[leadcounsel]

It as amazing, almost every published western "expert" on China since the 1990s has been wrong. Dead wrong.

The only published expert on China that his been 100 percent right over the last three decades is China itself. It has accomplished every strategic objective it published. China has not had to revise a single objective, not even extend a single timeline.. Not one.

I guess the only thing China has been wrong about, is that it is achieved almost all of its strategic objectives ahead of the schedule it published.

As others have written here, and you are surely aware, China has benefited with exponentially fast growth by skipping numerous steps in industrialization, leaping forward decades. This has been done through honest trade but also illicit means and IP and tech theft, spying, etc.

Many people foolishly discount China but is a global powerhouse. It does have weaknesses (food, clean water, energy, aging population, insular leadership at times), but it has massive competitive and comparative advantages, and can trade with any nation around the globe for resources. I believe it's a top 5 military power, it has no significant debt, it has unknown but substantial numbers of nuclear weapons, etc. It will probably be instrumental in the development of the next global currency with the other BRICS nations. It is buying massive amounts of gold as well.

 

[leadcounsel]

Because it has worked no where else, ever.

Are you suggesting that world superpowers like Russia and specifically China cannot get tens of millions of people to procreate in the next 18 months?

People mature to working productive age in about 15 years. Furthermore, anyone that's 65 now, will statistically be gone in that time. So, their age demographics problems will be solved in under 20 years.

This isn't a hard problem to solve. Humans have been LITERALLY procreating since the dawn of man.

China's resource that propelled them into the 21st century was there glut of cheap labor. Thats gone.

No. It's not. And as I've pointed out, with aggressive programs that foster pro-creation, any perceived demographic problems will be resolved in under 20 years. Closer to 15 years.

Further, it wasn't so much China's resources that propelled them but it was their ability to piggy-back on the world and skip I believe decades of industrialization growing. They went from horse and buggy, to super cars, and skipped all the steps in between. Whether that's good or bad is moot, it just is. China's explosion economy also benefited when I believe Nixon opened up trade, and thereafter NAFTA sent a lot of jobs and industrialization technology to China (which predictably learned and stole).

The notion China cannot solve a demographics problem is nonsensical IMO. It's wishful thinking.

He has a full presentation from Farmcon 6 years ago on Youtube. I Pretty much everything he predicted has happened so far.

What SPECIFIC difficult predictions on China did Mr. Zeihan get right over the last 6 years? Please name them. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[pbm]

We're still unchallenged. Neither China or Russia have the capability to project naval power across the globe. China has always been defensive and maintaining influence within their near sphere. It's not that much different than US policy beginning with the Monroe Doctrine (1823).

There's not going to be a war any time soon and the US only invades countries which don't have nuclear weapons.

I think you are underestimating China's (non nuclear) military.....and overestimating ours.

 

[GON]

I think you are underestimating China's (non nuclear) military.....and overestimating ours.

China looks set to build naval base in Argentina, a 'gateway' to Antarctica:

A permanent Chinese military installation in Equatorial Guinea is the culmination of nearly a decade’s investment in Africa – and will not be the last of such bases on the continent’s Atlantic coast


China has numerous military outposts and basis throughout the world. Some have written China even has a unpublished mitary force in British Columbia. Accurate, heck if I know.
https://www.wionews.com/world/china...entina-a-gateway-to-antarctica-reports-551446

https://ecfr.eu/article/chinas-new-military-base-in-africa-what-it-means-for-europe-and-america/

 

[leadcounsel]

I think you are underestimating China's (non nuclear) military.....and overestimating ours.

Exactly.
I honestly do not understand the delusions - perhaps based or rooted in Hollywood - of perceived US military strength.

I'm a US Army combat vet and student of history. I think I have some authority to say that folks are in for a big surprise if they think the US Army is somehow going to defeat China or Russia, or BOTH. It's simply impossible.

Historically, the US has effectively "lost" in Korea (technically a stalemate, but a superpower should win), lost badly in Vietnam, lost (a 20 year loss) in Iraq, and lost in Afghanistan. Then there's small loses, Lebanon, Somalia, Bengazi, and a long list of places we were pushed out of. None of these had real militaries, supply chains, air power, etc. The US had every conceivable advantage.

China and Russia are absolutely PEERS in most regards, better in some aspects, worse in others, but PEERS.

Folks need to wake up to the fact that a actual conventional and unconventional war with these superpowers means hardships for Americans we have never endured. This might be entire loss of electric grids LONG TERM. A totally collapsed economic system where there are real long term shortages of critical needs. Energy costs could easily spike by a factor of 10. Our entire petro-dollar might become worthless. We could experience crippling ongoing sustained cyber attacks that take down the internet long term. We could experience shooting down of every passenger jet by SAMS, like the 1000s of Atlantic ships were sunk in WWII. That would cripple our travel industry and bankrupt the airlines. We could experience endless sabotaging of infrastructure by terrorist cells already here, to our rails, power stations, key infrastructure, etc. Halted global trade when every ship is sunk, means if we don't make it domestically (and we probably don't), we cannot get it.

In a war, Americans flinch at 5,000 dead and quickly lose commitment. Russia and China are unshakable with 100,000 dead. No doubt in my mind these nations would sacrifice 10 million for a cause. Russia did it in WWII. Would the US sacrifice 10 million?

This isn't a game. This could become pure survival.

 

[Al]

We are completely superior to China, on sea, in the air and on the ground. We will never get into a ground war with them though.

We know our weapons work (as tested and improved in battle)...China's are untested.
Are aircraft are tested, are superior, are pilots are superior and we likely have better tested. China's air force can't compete with us.
On the ground our tactics, training (we have trained Ukraine), and equipment has been tested anproven to work. China is untested in Battle and tactics. They have not fought in 50 years.
On the see they are completely overmatched by us. Even on their turf.

IMHO they are indeed a paper tiger.

 

[GON]

We are completely superior to China, on sea, in the air and on the ground. We will never get into a ground war with them though.

We know our weapons work (as tested and improved in battle)...China's are untested.
Are aircraft are tested, are superior, are pilots are superior and we likely have better tested. China's air force can't compete with us.
On the ground our tactics, training (we have trained Ukraine), and equipment has been tested anproven to work. China is untested in Battle and tactics. They have not fought in 50 years.
On the see they are completely overmatched by us. Even on their turf.

IMHO they are indeed a paper tiger.

You might want to spend a few hours studying the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. After those few hours, you very well might come back with a different assessment and conclusion.

 

[Al]

Has nothing to do with us vs china. Not remotely IMHO

 

[leadcounsel]

We are completely superior to China, on sea, in the air and on the ground. We will never get into a ground war with them though.

We know our weapons work (as tested and improved in battle)...China's are untested.
Are aircraft are tested, are superior, are pilots are superior and we likely have better tested. China's air force can't compete with us.
On the ground our tactics, training (we have trained Ukraine), and equipment has been tested anproven to work. China is untested in Battle and tactics. They have not fought in 50 years.
On the see they are completely overmatched by us. Even on their turf.

IMHO they are indeed a paper tiger.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Do you have any real facts to support this?

China's ground forces are larger, Navy is similar, air power similar, technology superior in some regards but similar, presumably inferior in nukes but it's largely unknown.

Everything I have reviewed proves China is a PEER military. It also has conducted very successful unconventional warfare against us. It has crippled various US networks at times, including when I was on Active Duty and they used infected USB to infiltrate our networks thereafter prohibiting the use of USBs in our computers by policy. They have infiltrated our schools, colleges, compromised politicians, and much more. Let's not even get to the major 2020 even that collapsed the US economy. China could probably call our debts, and significantly harm or cripple our economy. China has no significant debt, but the US has crippling $32 Trillion in debt. How would we even fund a war?

And in case you need a scoreboard reminder, the US just lost an 8 year occupation in Iraq and a 20 year occupation in Afghanistan. The opponents were largely illiterate, had no manufacturing base, no Navy, no armor, no air power, no satellites, no cyber warfare ability, zero ability to strike the US on our own soil (post 9/11/01), no real supply chains, no healthcare/medics, and were largely using hand-me-down small arms and home made IEDs.

So, yeah... there's that pesky fact. If we cannot defeat such forces, what is the rational basis to think the US could defeat a global superpower, manufacturing hub of the world, that has the largest global population at 4x the US population (near infinite number of people), and well connected to energy and food producing nations (Russia, Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Brazil)...

I'm a former military officer. Military doctrine requires a assaulting force to have a minimum 3 to 1 ratio to prevail. We are on the losing end of that equation. China could go at us and lose 3 to 1 and still prevail. Further, the average Chinese person is more hardened than the average US person. The math is against us in every metric.

 

[GON]

Has nothing to do with us vs china. Not remotely IMHO

Suggest you read this article:

The brief war lasted just over six weeks, in an area of the world most Americans would have difficulty locating on a map, but its impacts on the future of warfare cannot be discounted. In his brief monograph, 7 Seconds to Die, retired US Army Colonel John Antal examines the conduct and implications of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, bringing to print a discussion heretofore confined to news articles, think tanks, scholarly journals, and military-focused blogs.

Antal’s 30-year career as an armor officer and post-Army career allow him a unique analysis of the war. His premise is simple, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was the first war decided by autonomous weapons; marks a democratization of precision weapons and remotely-operated or autonomous systems; and is a harbinger for future conflicts. As a result, Antal argues, US military and political leaders should pay attention to the conflict’s conduct.

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Ae...s-of-the-second-nagorno-karabakh-war-and-the/