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

[leadcounsel]

China may not need to win, they only need to drag us down and collapse the world economy.

The entire discussion boils down to this statement. The US has exactly 0.0% chance of defeating China on any timeline in any conventional or unconventional war. The US economy would be gone, our infrastructure easily wiped out, we could be blockaded from trade, and any conventional war would expose us to losses most Americans are mentally unable to take. China is 4x our population and has geographically close trade partners who are also powerful 1st world superpowers or extremely rich in resources, and would endure far more hardship than the US.

China's economy relies completely on America.

Not really. We are 350M people, easily replaced by trade with India (1.3B), Russia (140M), all of the Middle East, all of S. Africa, etc.). They are also wisely positioning themselves to align with the BRICS+ nations for trade. Again, these nations represent the top producers of energy, food, and have 1/2 the globes population. There will be no shortage of partners for China to trade with when 5% (the US) stops trading... If you don't think 50% can replace 5%, then I don't know how to explain it. But it is, in fact, happening.

It's hard to project power against terrorism or guerilla groups. A conventional conflict is completely different. America's military is designed to fight and engage in a direct conventional war like one would be with China. Actually, our doctrine is to be able to engage in 2 1/2 simultaneous major conflicts which means decisively win 2 of them, draw in the third.

COIN is very difficult. I know, b/c I studied it for the 4 tours I actually did. The take away is that, much like the irrationally unjustified America supremacy mentality I see in society and on internet discussions not unlike this, is that we grossly overestimate our abilities, and discount the fact the enemy gets a vote. COIN does present unique challenges. But if you're suggesting conventional forces are just going to roll over and die without innovating in ways to defeat the US, you're mistaken.

See, again, unlike Al Queda who was unable to really mount a successful attack or score real gains there or on US soil, a superpower like China could, in fact, win battles and cause crippling losses to the US. You do understand entire naval fleets could be sunk, right? Entire US cities could have grids collapsed? Our global communications could be turned off. The US economy could be shuttered overnight, I hope you understand this. The Chinese economy is not so fragile, nor is it easy for the US to infiltrate it, unlike China which is already here broadly and deeply.

The goal of the Korean War was to prevent the South from being taken over by the communists. That objective was achieved. That's victory. We did suffer our greatest military defeat when the North was on the brink of collapse and China suddenly invaded. That was our greatest intelligence failure until 9/11. Regardless, the original objective of the war was still achieved. We may have been a super power but that war was still waged thousands of miles from home while North Korea/China were in their back yards. They had a major advantage. If we launched a sudden invasion of the North and were repelled it would be known as a defeat. At worst the war is a stalemate and that's only because MacArthur got greedy trying to take over the North. In reality, our objective was accomplished and that can't be spun any differently. The North did not take over the South and unify Korea as communist.

We had the same goal in Vietnam which of course was a failure. Our military did not suffer a single defeat in Vietnam though. Our politicians are mostly to blame for our loss. We had no business being involved in a civil war thousands of miles away in jungles. Regardless, the Korean and Vietnam War were a long time ago and have little bearing on our military today.


The goal in Afghanistan was to rid it of being a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been decimated and haven't been able to pull off anything on our own soil since 9/11. Something nobody on 9/11 would've believed. I don't see how it's a failure. This was not a traditional war by any means where we could just raise up a flag over a capital city and say we won. I'm not saying it's a total victory by any means but the original objective and basis for the war was achieved. The war in Afghanistan is very grey. For the same reason gangs in inner cities will never go away, a true victory in a conflict like this is impossible.

The occupation of Iraq went very poorly. Our Government seriously screwed up with its troop levels and completely discharging the Iraqi army whom many went on to become insurgents. Regardless, the objective of the Iraq War was to oust Sadaam Hussein and instill a democratic regime. I'm not arguing this war is a victory but it's not a defeat. The main goal of the war was achieved in its first year. If Russia hypothetically took over and ousted Ukraine's Government by this point in time in their war you wouldn't be saying they lost because of civil unrest and an insurgency.

None of these countries had real militaries. That's exactly the problem. How are you supposed to fight or engage a country or group with no military? The United States has demolished every single conventional military in relatively recent memory. No contest. War in the 21st century is not black and white. War with terroists or guerilla groups will never deliver a traditional victory. It wouldn't be any different for any other world power.

You're right that Americans flinch at losses quite easily. It really depends on the war though. I think if we had a traditional conventional military to take on after 9/11, Americans would've been ready to lose hundreds of thousands. If we found nuclear weapons in Iraq, we would've been ready to take on more losses. Our biggest issue is fighting and engaging wars we have no reason being in. When war is waged, it's something to go all in for. It's why WW2 was a total success but every war since then has been very complicated except the Gulf War. Minus Korea, that's been the only traditional conventional conflict.

While it's true that America isn't infallible and our military isn't a perfect fighting force that can just topple over everything, you're seriously overestimating our perceived losses and overestimating our enemies. China has more men and ships/aircraft than America but our technology, navy and aircraft are superior. China recently said America's military is 20 years ahead of theirs. In fact, while this was a long time ago, China **** a brick when they seen how America rolled over Iraq in the Gulf War. Our military has long progressed since then. Russia can't even topple their own neighbor they share a border with while we annihilated Iraq's military 1000's of miles away. Our militaries are not equal. God knows what we have in secret after all the trillions of dollars spent since the 90's.

China has long seethed over Taiwan. There's one big reason standing in the way that they haven't done anything. In fact, many scholars believe China regrets the Korean War because this lead to America's commitment to Taiwan. If our militaries were truly on par or close to being so, China would've invaded by now given their geographical advantage.

I think your assessments are partly correct but I disagree with some. Notably, we might label N. Korea as a stalemate but we only achieved 1/2 of our objectives at a very costly ~60,000 US deaths in 3 years. Considering the power mis-match, I factor that as a loss because it should have been a "easy win" but it is a lesson we should not forget. WE are not just going to go steamroll other nations.

Afghanistan is a failure 2nd only to Vietnam in a total catastrophic 20 year waste of lives, money, and equipment. We killed a lot of terrorists, a larger amount of innocent people, and we are irrelevant there today. China has the foothold. There's still plenty of Mujahadeen, Al Queda, and Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, Taliban controls the nation...

While counter insurgency is extremely difficult, it is not nearly as threatening or difficult as war with a superpower. How folks somehow think superpowers with modern weapons, modern tech, larger forces, strategic planners, etc. is somehow going to be EASIER - I cannot fathom. See, the Taliban or Al Queda could score small kills, ambush a convoy and take out 5 guys, but couldn't really win any real significant battles or cause hundreds of losses. Outside of 91101 they had no real ability to hit US infrastructure. They sunk zero ships, I think shot down zero fighter jets, had no missiles or ability thru air power to project any strength anywhere.

China has long seethed over Taiwan. There's one big reason standing in the way that they haven't done anything. In fact, many scholars believe China regrets the Korean War because this lead to America's commitment to Taiwan. If our militaries were truly on par or close to being so, China would've invaded by now given their geographical advantage.

China can outwait the US as we sink deeper into a debt spiral and exhaust our resources in the proxy war in Ukraine over Russia. China has the US in a near checkmate IMO. The deeper we get into Ukraine, to include we have sent US military units to Poland and outskirts of Ukraine, and massive amounts of weapons, the better for China. The Chinese have a distinct advantage in politics as they have 1 consistent plan. The US changes leadership every 2, 4, and 6 years so we have incoherent plans and as soon as we get into conflicts the next candidates run on promises to get out.

When China is ready is going to encircle Taiwan in blockades and there won't be a thing the US can do to stop it. You wait.

China could kill more Americans in 1 battle, than the Taliban / AQ killed in 20 years including the tower attacks. Think about that. So I don't see how that's somehow an easier problem, considering they have 4x the population. China could lose 50,000 men in year 1, and not blink. We are seeing Russia do that in Ukraine. An honest question, do you think TikTok Americans are going to maintain resolve when the US takes 50,000 losses in year 1? I don't.

The "stan" countries are drifting away from Moscow's influence.

Not sure what you mean, but suggest you look at the global alliances with Russia. They include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, India, and a dozen others. All moving in a distinctly anti-western direction.

Putin has made ICC's list of most wanted international terrorists.

A point that everyone include serious minded western diplomats knows is irrelevant and toothless. But if you want to discuss international terrorism, Seymour Hersh has leveled the accusation against the west for the largest ecological terrorism in history, alleging the US destroyed the Nordstream pipelines thereby directly attacking not only Russia but our NATO allies. He seems to have strong evidence that has not been effectively denied by the US.

Putin wanted to re-establish the Russian empire. He invades Ukraine planning a 4 day walk through and 13 months later, he has lost tens of thousands of troops plus uncounted military equipment.

This the fundamental misunderstanding from western armchair generals. First, Russia is not on some mandated timeline, and Russia initially went with a softer approach than the west when we conducted "shock and awe" on Iraq. It's a fundamentally different war. Ukraine is deeply tied to Russia so Putin's goal was to limit death and ruin. Had the west not interfered Ukraine would have fallen in weeks probably.

Putin appears to have miscalculated only inasmuch as he did not expect the west to commit suicide and acts of war to defend Ukraine. The bulk of the death and ruin is directly caused by the west sending munitions to prolong war.

If you look at the timeline, it's not dis-similar to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 timeline. We did not secure Iraq for years. Note Iraq was not being supported by 10 superpowers channeling modern weapons there, nor a propaghanda machine supporting Iraq, as we see with Ukraine being propped up for survival by the west.

But in the end Russia will prevail on their own timeline. Every serious minded analyst sees that Ukraine is nearly out of men, out of weapons, and only in this with supplies from the west. Russia has near unlimited resources, millions of men, and their economy is stronger after the trade embargos as they established trade elsewhere.

we might find that China controls 3/4 of the globes population and resources (including Russia) and can easily out spend us, militarily, and in every way, and we are out of options to compete for friends....

Correct.
I've mentioned it but China and Russia have essentially no debt. The US is, conversely, drowning in debt for a host of reasons not important, other than poor decision making here. It is not only possible but probable the US economy craters from our debt into a death spiral as the US dollars evaporate and the BRICS nations move the rest of the world into the next decade of prosperity. China is already making huge inroads in lithium rich (battery minerals) Afghanistan and S. Africa, for instance.

If folks do not understand this fundamental economic point, it is time to get educated.

 

[buster]

If folks do not understand this fundamental economic point, it is time to get educated.

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-china-economy.php

https://www.ft.com/content/cff42bc4-f9e3-4f51-985a-86518934afbe

"Growth in the long term depends on more workers using more capital, and using it more efficiently (productivity). China, with a shrinking population and declining productivity growth, has been growing by injecting more capital into the economy at an unsustainable rate."

"China is now a middle-income country, a stage when many economies naturally start to slow given the higher base. Its per capita income is currently $12,500, one-fifth that of the US. There are 38 advanced economies today, and all of them grew past the $12,500 income level in the decades after the second world war — most quite gradually. Only 19 grew at 2.5 per cent or faster for the next 10 years, and did so with a boost from more workers; on average the working age population grew at 1.2 per cent a year. Only two (Lithuania and Latvia) had a shrinking workforce."

"Before the 2008 crisis, China’s debts held steady at about 150 per cent of GDP; afterwards it began pumping out credit to boost growth, and debts spiked to 220 per cent of GDP by 2015. Debt binges normally lead to a sharp slowdown, and China’s economy did decelerate in the 2010s, but only from 10 per cent to 6 per cent — less dramatically than past patterns would predict."

http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/CHINA-DEBT-HOUSEHOLD/010030H712Q/index.html

"China’s debt is more than 250 percent of GDP, higher than the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_China

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...accurate-reflection-or-just-smoke-and-mirrors

"Skepticism for Chinese official economic data is widespread, and it should be. Even if every Chinese economic number were reported truthfully and accurately to the best of an individual’s understanding, the official numbers would still fail to fully capture the evolution of an economy growing and changing so quickly."

"Part of the issue is demography. China’s working-age population has actually been declining since 2015. The Chinese economy can still grow rapidly if it can sustain rapid productivity growth. But China’s policy missteps seem to have reinforced the perception that it’s entering the “middle-income trap,” a widely claimed (although controversial) phenomenon in which some poorer nations achieve rapid catch-up, but only up to a point, and stall out well below the income levels of the most advanced economies.

None of this should be taken to detract from the incredible rise in Chinese living standards over the past four decades, nor as a denial that China has already become an economic superpower. But if you were expecting Chinese economic dominance, you may have to wait for a long time. As I said, China’s future isn’t what it used to be."

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...id-growth-zero-covid-by-shang-jin-wei-2023-01

 

[OVERKILL]

I'm not in agreement with some of @leadcounsel's speculation on how things would bear out, and I think @Astro14, another member who has served, would have a different perspective, but I do think there have been some very valid points raised about what Americans would be willing to tolerate, in terms of things like losses, to maintain the country's global position and that this is likely insufficient, thus allowing the increasing creep of China's sphere of influence.

A decent example might be the first battle of Kiev during WWII where clearly superior German forces with better equipment, positions and experience absolutely slaughtered the Soviets. There were over 700,000 casualties. 2 years later with the 2nd battle of Kiev, the Soviets were able to retake the city while suffering 10x the casualties of the Germans.

Never underestimate the ability of a regime with absolute control to continue to throw lives at a problem is I believe the takeaway and one the West need be mindful of as things continue to escalate. Like the Americans vs the Chinese, the Germans were better in every possible way to the Soviets, but they could not come close to sustaining the rate of casualties that the Soviets were willing to take.

 

[buster]

I'm sure this won't last forever.

 

[buster]

The CCP tries to hire retired UK air force pilots to help train their air force. They caught up quickly for sure. Our submarines are a generation or two ahead of them. Russia helped them with hypersonics.

https://www.voanews.com/a/retired-r...training-chinese-military-pilots/6798832.html

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/China-s-228m-retirees-set-to-drain-economy-and-social-safety-net

 

[IndyIan]

The entire discussion boils down to this statement. The US has exactly 0.0% chance of defeating China on any timeline in any conventional or unconventional war. The US economy would be gone, our infrastructure easily wiped out, we could be blockaded from trade, and any conventional war would expose us to losses most Americans are mentally unable to take. China is 4x our population and has geographically close trade partners who are also powerful 1st world superpowers or extremely rich in resources, and would endure far more hardship than the US.


Not really. We are 350M people, easily replaced by trade with India (1.3B), Russia (140M), all of the Middle East, all of S. Africa, etc.). They are also wisely positioning themselves to align with the BRICS+ nations for trade. Again, these nations represent the top producers of energy, food, and have 1/2 the globes population. There will be no shortage of partners for China to trade with when 5% (the US) stops trading... If you don't think 50% can replace 5%, then I don't know how to explain it. But it is, in fact, happening.


COIN is very difficult. I know, b/c I studied it for the 4 tours I actually did. The take away is that, much like the irrationally unjustified America supremacy mentality I see in society and on internet discussions not unlike this, is that we grossly overestimate our abilities, and discount the fact the enemy gets a vote. COIN does present unique challenges. But if you're suggesting conventional forces are just going to roll over and die without innovating in ways to defeat the US, you're mistaken.

See, again, unlike Al Queda who was unable to really mount a successful attack or score real gains there or on US soil, a superpower like China could, in fact, win battles and cause crippling losses to the US. You do understand entire naval fleets could be sunk, right? Entire US cities could have grids collapsed? Our global communications could be turned off. The US economy could be shuttered overnight, I hope you understand this. The Chinese economy is not so fragile, nor is it easy for the US to infiltrate it, unlike China which is already here broadly and deeply.


I think your assessments are partly correct but I disagree with some. Notably, we might label N. Korea as a stalemate but we only achieved 1/2 of our objectives at a very costly ~60,000 US deaths in 3 years. Considering the power mis-match, I factor that as a loss because it should have been a "easy win" but it is a lesson we should not forget. WE are not just going to go steamroll other nations.

Afghanistan is a failure 2nd only to Vietnam in a total catastrophic 20 year waste of lives, money, and equipment. We killed a lot of terrorists, a larger amount of innocent people, and we are irrelevant there today. China has the foothold. There's still plenty of Mujahadeen, Al Queda, and Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, Taliban controls the nation...

While counter insurgency is extremely difficult, it is not nearly as threatening or difficult as war with a superpower. How folks somehow think superpowers with modern weapons, modern tech, larger forces, strategic planners, etc. is somehow going to be EASIER - I cannot fathom. See, the Taliban or Al Queda could score small kills, ambush a convoy and take out 5 guys, but couldn't really win any real significant battles or cause hundreds of losses. Outside of 91101 they had no real ability to hit US infrastructure. They sunk zero ships, I think shot down zero fighter jets, had no missiles or ability thru air power to project any strength anywhere.


China can outwait the US as we sink deeper into a debt spiral and exhaust our resources in the proxy war in Ukraine over Russia. China has the US in a near checkmate IMO. The deeper we get into Ukraine, to include we have sent US military units to Poland and outskirts of Ukraine, and massive amounts of weapons, the better for China. The Chinese have a distinct advantage in politics as they have 1 consistent plan. The US changes leadership every 2, 4, and 6 years so we have incoherent plans and as soon as we get into conflicts the next candidates run on promises to get out.

When China is ready is going to encircle Taiwan in blockades and there won't be a thing the US can do to stop it. You wait.

China could kill more Americans in 1 battle, than the Taliban / AQ killed in 20 years including the tower attacks. Think about that. So I don't see how that's somehow an easier problem, considering they have 4x the population. China could lose 50,000 men in year 1, and not blink. We are seeing Russia do that in Ukraine. An honest question, do you think TikTok Americans are going to maintain resolve when the US takes 50,000 losses in year 1? I don't.


Not sure what you mean, but suggest you look at the global alliances with Russia. They include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, India, and a dozen others. All moving in a distinctly anti-western direction.


A point that everyone include serious minded western diplomats knows is irrelevant and toothless. But if you want to discuss international terrorism, Seymour Hersh has leveled the accusation against the west for the largest ecological terrorism in history, alleging the US destroyed the Nordstream pipelines thereby directly attacking not only Russia but our NATO allies. He seems to have strong evidence that has not been effectively denied by the US.


This the fundamental misunderstanding from western armchair generals. First, Russia is not on some mandated timeline, and Russia initially went with a softer approach than the west when we conducted "shock and awe" on Iraq. It's a fundamentally different war. Ukraine is deeply tied to Russia so Putin's goal was to limit death and ruin. Had the west not interfered Ukraine would have fallen in weeks probably.

Putin appears to have miscalculated only inasmuch as he did not expect the west to commit suicide and acts of war to defend Ukraine. The bulk of the death and ruin is directly caused by the west sending munitions to prolong war.

If you look at the timeline, it's not dis-similar to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 timeline. We did not secure Iraq for years. Note Iraq was not being supported by 10 superpowers channeling modern weapons there, nor a propaghanda machine supporting Iraq, as we see with Ukraine being propped up for survival by the west.

But in the end Russia will prevail on their own timeline. Every serious minded analyst sees that Ukraine is nearly out of men, out of weapons, and only in this with supplies from the west. Russia has near unlimited resources, millions of men, and their economy is stronger after the trade embargos as they established trade elsewhere.



Correct.
I've mentioned it but China and Russia have essentially no debt. The US is, conversely, drowning in debt for a host of reasons not important, other than poor decision making here. It is not only possible but probable the US economy craters from our debt into a death spiral as the US dollars evaporate and the BRICS nations move the rest of the world into the next decade of prosperity. China is already making huge inroads in lithium rich (battery minerals) Afghanistan and S. Africa, for instance.

If folks do not understand this fundamental economic point, it is time to get educated.

I think as long as China doesn't start propping up Russia's military, Ukraine can fight to a truce or perhaps even retake all its territory, or outlast Putin... I suspect almost all Russians know that attacking Ukraine was not a great idea in the first place, and a sustained war with Ukraine backed by the west is a really bad idea. Russia has a lot of men but is losing them at a much greater rate, and if the west sends more good stuff, russia will run out of soldiers before ukraine. They have tried the massed untrained assault tactics of WW2 in Bakhmut and its not paying off at all. 20-30:1 losses aren't sustainable.
I suspect China doesn't like dealing with an irrational Putin either, so I think they'll let him take a minor defeat, and Russia can just continue to supply natural resources to China, or he can get assassinated and the next guy will likely be easier to deal with, they don't care.

 

[GON]

I'm not in agreement with some of @leadcounsel's speculation on how things would bear out, and I think @Astro14, another member who has served, would have a different perspective, but I do think there have been some very valid points raised about what Americans would be willing to tolerate, in terms of things like losses, to maintain the country's global position and that this is likely insufficient, thus allowing the increasing creep of China's sphere of influence.

A decent example might be the first battle of Kiev during WWII where clearly superior German forces with better equipment, positions and experience absolutely slaughtered the Soviets. There were over 700,000 casualties. 2 years later with the 2nd battle of Kiev, the Soviets were able to retake the city while suffering 10x the casualties of the Germans.

Never underestimate the ability of a regime with absolute control to continue to throw lives at a problem is I believe the takeaway and one the West need be mindful of as things continue to escalate. Like the Americans vs the Chinese, the Germans were better in every possible way to the Soviets, but they could not come close to sustaining the rate of casualties that the Soviets were willing to take.

OK,

You wrote " about what Americans would be willing to tolerate", you are referencing casualties and more specifically I believe fatalities.

I am not sure if even comes to that. During WWII, Americans (and Canadians) were asked to sacrifice a tremendous amount to support the war effort. From turning off lights at night to protect from light noise as a target for adversarial bombing threats, to rationing of items to include coffee. Americans have not been asked to sacrifice much (other than the very greatest sacrifice of loss of America's Sons and Daughters) in the conflicts post 9/11. A war with a major adversary will require major sacrifices to creature comforts, quality of life, etc, to be as competitive as required in a conflict of that nature.

 

[Strommen95]

Not really. We are 350M people, easily replaced by trade with India (1.3B), Russia (140M), all of the Middle East, all of S. Africa, etc.). They are also wisely positioning themselves to align with the BRICS+ nations for trade. Again, these nations represent the top producers of energy, food, and have 1/2 the globes population. There will be no shortage of partners for China to trade with when 5% (the US) stops trading... If you don't think 50% can replace 5%, then I don't know how to explain it. But it is, in fact, happening.

All of those nations collectively have less gross domestic product than the United States. If the United States suddenly stopped trading with China, it would take China years to match status quo. Those nations could not fill the gap overnight. 50% of the population has less money and ability to project power than the 5%. Judging by population is very misleading.

As of 2023, yes, the Chinese economy heavily relies on America. The American economy is helped by but does not rely on the Chinese economy.

COIN is very difficult. I know, b/c I studied it for the 4 tours I actually did. The take away is that, much like the irrationally unjustified America supremacy mentality I see in society and on internet discussions not unlike this, is that we grossly overestimate our abilities, and discount the fact the enemy gets a vote. COIN does present unique challenges. But if you're suggesting conventional forces are just going to roll over and die without innovating in ways to defeat the US, you're mistaken.

Nobody suggested anybody would roll over to anybody. I could and will easily say that you're just overestimating the enemy when you say we overestimate ourselves. What we do know is that any conventional military battle in modern times has been an easy American victory. China has not fought a meaningful conventional battle since the 70s. Battle experience is very important and the American military is battle hardened. China's is not. That much we know.

See, again, unlike Al Queda who was unable to really mount a successful attack or score real gains there or on US soil, a superpower like China could, in fact, win battles and cause crippling losses to the US. You do understand entire naval fleets could be sunk, right? Entire US cities could have grids collapsed? Our global communications could be turned off. The US economy could be shuttered overnight, I hope you understand this. The Chinese economy is not so fragile, nor is it easy for the US to infiltrate it, unlike China which is already here broadly and deeply.

This is mostly speculation. Suggesting their economy isn't fragile or subject to American influence is just not true. At the absolute worst, America would be able to at least destroy most of China's electrical grid. War is generally an eye for an eye. I highly doubt China would mess with our grid despite likely having the capability to do so.

War with China would mostly be in the sea and air. If you think America's Air and Naval might is matched, you're not being objective in this discussion.

I think your assessments are partly correct but I disagree with some. Notably, we might label N. Korea as a stalemate but we only achieved 1/2 of our objectives at a very costly ~60,000 US deaths in 3 years. Considering the power mis-match, I factor that as a loss because it should have been a "easy win" but it is a lesson we should not forget. WE are not just going to go steamroll other nations.

The only objective in the beginning of the war was to prevent a unified Korea under communist rule.

Asides from nuclear weapons, which weren't used, what power mismatch was there? Technology was not as broad or mismatched as today. America had to fight a war thousands of miles away while China and North Korea were in their back yard. Despite this, America lost 36,000 soldiers(not 60,000) and China lost 600,000.

America was unprepared for war in Asia, had to launch an amphibious invasion and joined when 90% of South Korea was overtaken. There was nothing easy about it.

Afghanistan is a failure 2nd only to Vietnam in a total catastrophic 20 year waste of lives, money, and equipment. We killed a lot of terrorists, a larger amount of innocent people, and we are irrelevant there today. China has the foothold. There's still plenty of Mujahadeen, Al Queda, and Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, Taliban controls the nation...

China has a foothold on what exactly? Afghanistan has no geopolitical influence whatsoever. The only reason we know where Afghanistan is because of the Soviets and then Al Qaeda.

America having serious influence on Indonesia, Australia and Japan is a much greater geopolitical hindrance to China than anything China has on the United States. China is contained by American soft power.

While counter insurgency is extremely difficult, it is not nearly as threatening or difficult as war with a superpower. How folks somehow think superpowers with modern weapons, modern tech, larger forces, strategic planners, etc. is somehow going to be EASIER - I cannot fathom. See, the Taliban or Al Queda could score small kills, ambush a convoy and take out 5 guys, but couldn't really win any real significant battles or cause hundreds of losses. Outside of 91101 they had no real ability to hit US infrastructure. They sunk zero ships, I think shot down zero fighter jets, had no missiles or ability thru air power to project any strength anywhere.

China's military is unable to project serious power anywhere other than their own continent. China is not a superpower.

Difficult is relative. War with China would be much more costly. Achieving a decisive victory would not be as difficult. Achieving victory against a conventional military is easier to obtain than against terrorists or guerillas. Easier in the sense that a traditional military can be completely defeated. If China was prevented from successfully invading Taiwan and their navy lost control of the East + South China Sea, they would have lost the war. There would be nothing from that point on they could do that would realistically change the conventional outcome. In contrast, terrorists die at Fallujah and just regroup in another area as civilians until they can fight again. The two are not the same or comparable.

Yes, war with a major military power is much more costly. A defined victory is easier to achieve though. There's no way to truly defeat terrorism. You can let them wage war on your own soil or go to theirs, spend a crap load of money, kill a lot of them but breed more in the process. It's a no win situation for a country.

China can outwait the US as we sink deeper into a debt spiral and exhaust our resources in the proxy war in Ukraine over Russia. China has the US in a near checkmate IMO. The deeper we get into Ukraine, to include we have sent US military units to Poland and outskirts of Ukraine, and massive amounts of weapons, the better for China. The Chinese have a distinct advantage in politics as they have 1 consistent plan. The US changes leadership every 2, 4, and 6 years so we have incoherent plans and as soon as we get into conflicts the next candidates run on promises to get out.

When China is ready is going to encircle Taiwan in blockades and there won't be a thing the US can do to stop it. You wait.

China could kill more Americans in 1 battle, than the Taliban / AQ killed in 20 years including the tower attacks. Think about that. So I don't see how that's somehow an easier problem, considering they have 4x the population. China could lose 50,000 men in year 1, and not blink. We are seeing Russia do that in Ukraine. An honest question, do you think TikTok Americans are going to maintain resolve when the US takes 50,000 losses in year 1? I don't.

American foreign policy has been pretty consistent for decades despite being a democracy. The institution itself doesn't change much. The major advantage China has is control and that's likely an illusion as their recent COVID related unrest has helped reveal. Ukraine has demonstrated that American military equipment is far superior to Russia's and they're getting hand me down stuff. The Ukraine War has been a major geo-political win for the United States from day 1. America can restock with better, more modern equipment. NATO is larger, stronger and will share more border directly with Russia. NATO is rearming and mostly buying American equipment. Not to mention how obvious it is to NATO how reliant they are on America's military. Russia has lost tens of thousands of people while America hasn't lost a soul. There is nothing about Ukraine that could spun as negative for America.

Iraq could've killed more Americans in 1 battle than the Taliban or Al Qaeda could've. Both times, with equipment comparable to Russian and China's at the time, they were decimated. We're seeing Russia struggle at their own border when American's military and equipment decimated a major foreign power thousands of miles away. You grade America on a far different spectrum than any other country.

 

[OVERKILL]

OK,

You wrote " about what Americans would be willing to tolerate", you are referencing casualties and more specifically I believe fatalities.

I am not sure if even comes to that. During WWII, Americans (and Canadians) were asked to sacrifice a tremendous amount to support the war effort. From turning off lights at night to protect from light noise as a target for adversarial bombing threats, to rationing of items to include coffee. Americans have not been asked to sacrifice much (other than the very greatest sacrifice of loss of America's Sons and Daughters) in the conflicts post 9/11. A war with a major adversary will require major sacrifices to creature comforts, quality of life, etc, to be as competitive as required in a conflict of that nature.

Yes, there's absolutely the psychological cost and lifestyle costs that go along with the tolerance for the body count. All things we haven't had to deal with at levels the greatest generation did.

 

[SC Maintenance]

If folks do not understand this fundamental economic point, it is time to get educated.

Our speculation on the future varies obviously, but I do believe you have many of your facts wrong.

China is the most globally integrated country in the world. They have the largest % of GDP associated with trade. The majority of their neighbors are unfriendly to China - Japan and South Korea especially, Australia has aligned themselves with the USA, There in this strange sorta war with India where they fight each other with clubs. I can't even start to explain that one. There are no more great nations to export goods to - unless developing countries become much richer, much sooner than expected.

USA is one of the least globally integrated modern countries in the world. Of that, almost half our total trade is with Canada and Mexico - highly unlikely that changes. Our economy isn't really based on trade to a great extent.

China is the largest exporter of mid value manufactured goods - basic products the largest being consumer / business electronics and textiles. China are large net importers of food, energy, and the inputs for both.

The USA is net exporter of food and energy. USA is the largest exporter of services in the world - including many technical services.

All the above referenced from the OECD: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa/
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn

China has printed 4X the money out of thin air that the US has printed since 2008. The idea they have no debt is laughable. They simply hide it in local governments and government run businesses - so they essentially owe it to themselves. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/31/economy/china-local-governments-basic-services-debt-crisis-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=Analysts estimate China's outstanding government,backed by cities or provinces.

USA also prints too much debt. Its also denominated in our own currency. The majority of it is still held internally.

Neither country will ever repay their debt. Their fiat will go to zero at some point. It won't be good for either.

Lastly my opinion. Given were a net exporter of goods you need to survive - food, energy, and technical services, and a net importer of mostly junk we don't need, my personal opinion is we should go back into isolationist behavior. Worked pretty well before 1914.

 

[userfriendly]

I don't understand the obsession with Taiwan. The sky didn't fall when Hong Kong was repatriated 26 years ago in 1997.
As far as I care, China can have both North Korea and Taiwan. The Philippines can remain independant and supply cheap labor.

On the eastern front, I think a weak Russia is in everybody's best interest. China would benefit and get some dirt back to boot.
Japan would get a few islands back.

Poland seems to be the most proactive of the Euro's. I guess they have a longer memory than a few of the others mentioned in this thread.
Russia is rolling out museum grade armor from storage according to TVP, Polish public media. Rock Rachon is quite the character on TVP.

leadcouncel, I like your pragmatic take on the impracticality of another military conflict in the Pacific. Even if you won the battle, you would lose the war. I doubt if the population would roll out the red carpet and the place is too big to occupy.
Count Canada out. We just lent out all of out spare 155s and our 105s are needed for avalanche mitagation. Our Pacific battle fleet consists of 80 kayaks, 20 BC Ferries and 3 canoes. On our north we have a dog team and a single shot .22 just in case the Ruskies
come over the top.
Our universities are full of Chinese students. The BMW dealerships would go broke without them.

 

[leadcounsel]

I'm sure this won't last forever.

Vox?
LOL.

 

[leadcounsel]

Ukraine can fight to a truce or perhaps even retake all its territory, or outlast Putin...

Ukraine is losing men at roughly 10 to 1, and being outshelled by the same margin.
Urkaine is predicted to be out of fighting able men and artillery by summertime. It has no manufacturing, and mobile mechanics to fix broken old equipment. It is getting a patchwork of mismatched vehicles and equipment, and that creates its own reliability and supply line problems and training problems. Ukraine is buried in logistical issues, and is nearly entirely reliant on the continued generosity of the west.

Contrast.
Russia has not been materially impacted by any losses, all have been replaced. Russia is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world, has the largest landmass in the world, is energy and food rich. And has now good allegances with other key partners, trading in Rubles, energy, and gold, for arms and support.

Ukraine literally stands no chance absent the west directly sending men to die. I hope that does not happen, but it might.

That result would be a protracted Russia victory with more dead on all sides. Or a Russia loss, them feeling threatened, and launching nuclear arms. Might ultimately lead to a stalemate and truce with Russia taking 1/3rd of Ukraine or more. I don't realistically see a different option.

I suspect almost all Russians know that attacking Ukraine was not a great idea in the first place, and a sustained war with Ukraine backed by the west is a really bad idea. Russia has a lot of men but is losing them at a much greater rate, and if the west sends more good stuff, russia will run out of soldiers before ukraine. They have tried the massed untrained assault tactics of WW2 in Bakhmut and its not paying off at all. 20-30:1 losses aren't sustainable.

There are literally no reliable metrics to support any of these statements, whatsoever. The reality is as I wrote.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Ukraine is losing men at roughly 10 to 1, and being outshelled by the same margin.
Urkaine is predicted to be out of fighting able men and artillery by summertime. It has no manufacturing, and mobile mechanics to fix broken old equipment. It is getting a patchwork of mismatched vehicles and equipment, and that creates its own reliability and supply line problems and training problems. Ukraine is buried in logistical issues, and is nearly entirely reliant on the continued generosity of the west.

Contrast.
Russia has not been materially impacted by any losses, all have been replaced. Russia is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world, has the largest landmass in the world, is energy and food rich. And has now good allegances with other key partners, trading in Rubles, energy, and gold, for arms and support.

Ukraine literally stands no chance absent the west directly sending men to die. I hope that does not happen, but it might.

That result would be a protracted Russia victory with more dead on all sides. Or a Russia loss, them feeling threatened, and launching nuclear arms. Might ultimately lead to a stalemate and truce with Russia taking 1/3rd of Ukraine or more. I don't realistically see a different option.

Source? I have been hearing all this "Russia is holding back" now for about a year.

 

[leadcounsel]

China's military is unable to project serious power anywhere other than their own continent. China is not a superpower.

I was going to attempt to engage in a actual informed debate, but I can see it's fruitless based on this uniformed viewpoint.

FYI, you have a lot of homework. China has a top 5 global economy, top 5 global military, top 5 global Navy, is ranked #3 in the number of active nuclear weapons, and has the largest population on the planet and is considered the manufacturing hub on the globe.

Yeah, not a superpower, no ability to project power. It's not even a serious position to take.

 

[wpod]

Like i said, its not that simple. Last time Germany had military power, it took 2 superpowers to stop them

The U.S.A. had oil and manufacturing.

 

[leadcounsel]

Source? I have been hearing all this "Russia is holding back" now for about a year.

Literally anyone who knows anything about what is going on.

Russia plainly is holding the bulk of its trained fighters, elite units, and modern equipment in reserve for a real fight. The Wagner group is doing the bulk of the fighting, with the least trained infantry, and they are getting rid of ancient armor and letting the west waste Ukrainian men and artillery and equipment blowing up WWII tanks.

If you researched this topic you might learn this is what is occurring. Militaries don't tend to send their best in to be ground up, initially. It's a valid strategy. Putin is letting the west waste all that equipment and men on 4th string fighters and old equipment.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Literally anyone who knows anything about what is going on.

Russia plainly is holding the bulk of its trained fighters, elite units, and modern equipment in reserve for a real fight. The Wagner group is doing the bulk of the fighting, with the least trained infantry, and they are getting rid of ancient armor and letting the west waste Ukrainian men and artillery and equipment blowing up WWII tanks.

If you researched this topic you might learn this is what is occurring. Militaries don't tend to send their best in to be ground up, initially. It's a valid strategy. Putin is letting the west waste all that equipment and men on 4th string fighters and old equipment.

Then source it. You said Ukraine is loosing men 10 to 1. Russia is 5 times the size of Ukraine. There on there second round of conscription which doesn't even include Wagner. They have had a standing army for hundreds of years vs Ukraines realistic 8 years. If Ukraine were loosing men 10:1 this would have been over long ago.

Typical answer to those who blow smoke is to try to be condescending. So source your 10:1 loss for Ukraine?

 

[leadcounsel]

Then source it. You said Ukraine is loosing men 10 to 1. Russia is 5 times the size of Ukraine. There on there second round of conscription which doesn't even include Wagner. They have had a standing army for hundreds of years vs Ukraines realistic 8 years. If Ukraine were loosing men 10:1 this would have been over long ago.

Typical answer to those who blow smoke is to try to be condescending. So source your 10:1 loss for Ukraine?

COL MacGreggor does nearly daily podcasts, and is one of the most informed sources on this conflict. Another is Tony Shaffer. Another is Scott Ritter. There are others. I listen and read on this topic, almost daily.

But you have literally said China is not a superpower and has no ability to project might on the world. Unreal. I guess you slept thru the last 3 years?

 

[SC Maintenance]

COL MacGreggor does nearly daily podcasts, and is one of the most informed sources on this conflict. Another is Tony Shaffer. Another is Scott Ritter. There are others. I listen and read on this topic, almost daily.

But you have literally said China is not a superpower and has no ability to project might on the world. Unreal. I guess you slept thru the last 3 years?

So a couple old retired shills sitting in the USA looking for youtube clicks is your source? Do they have a source?

I imagine I could find some retired Ukrainian bloggers that say Ukraine is winning one billion to 1.

The AP Estimates its actually 2:1 for Ukraine, but of course no one really knows. Ukraine will still loose at this rate eventually - but its a far cry from your claim - 20X difference. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-numbers-8768880034d9d7cd6ac6f3e34abd66f5