[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1626579469298.jpeg ( 79.63 KB , 1280x720 , maxresdefault.jpeg )

 No.384961

Would the US mount a successful ground invasion of mainland china? What about China successfully taking Taiwan and holding the worlds semiconductor capacity? What about naval battles in the pacific? Surprise nuclear attack on Hawaii?

Is it inevitable? and who will win, provided it is in the future (2030+)??
>>

 No.384964

It would literally just be a bunch of ships planes and drones shooting each other, no real invasion would occur because america and china have militaries at around the same size and are geographically distant enough that infantry being deployed to carry out an invasion would be extremely difficult
>>

 No.384983

File: 1626580477560.jpeg ( 11.09 KB , 225x224 , download (3).jpeg )

>>384961
>Surprise nuclear attack on Hawaii?
>>

 No.384985

>>384964
If its just ships and planes though i actually give china pretty good odds.

Ever since 2001 when Rumsfeld was given a blank check to rebuild the US military in his image the US theory of combat has been 'future-soldier' (I think thats what its called or something really stupid like that) Which was thing developed in the 90s where instead of properly funding the Navy or Air-Force you just tape flashlights and infrared scopes to rifles and give everyone heat-seeking goggles until they look like a 40k space marine and the Navy and Airforce basically just become smaller orgs meant to support the army itself. (This dosen't work btw even most NATO members panned the concept)

Thus the US navy is notoriously the least professional and most corrupt and poncy part of the US armed forces
>>

 No.384991

>>384985
Your assuming that gdp growth hasn't allowed the us marines considerably more funding over the years along with tech companies and computer integrated machines allowing for better warships and jets like what BBC showed with that laser heat cannon
>>

 No.384997

from what i read the main fights would be in the ocean on boats and what not, and also china would nuke the west coast
>>

 No.384998

>>384983
yeah that one was kindof a stretch no need for the glowing meme though
>>

 No.385009

>>384997
nuclear escalation with the US is dangerous considering the us still has enough nukes to destroy the planet. id hope both sides know better than to normalize nuclear warfare
>>

 No.385025

File: 1626582003299.gif ( 7.08 MB , 504x382 , image9-min.gif )

>>384961
>Would the US mount a successful ground invasion of mainland china?
Absolutely not.

>>384985
Future Combat Systems but yeah. But IMO I give the Navy somewhat better marks because, corruption aside, most sailors are doing things that would otherwise just be a "job" in any other context. There are a ton of logistics jobs at ports and on ships and less oorah bullshit, and sailors can seem pretty down to earth in comparison to the other branches and less full of themselves. I think the Air Force is the most pretentious and poncy, and also very insecure for historical reasons.

>>384991
The U.S. military is incredibly well-resourced and should not be underestimated, but it's also bloated and inefficient and the military-industrial complex has pushed it so far they're now hamstringing their own capabilities. Look at the F-35 for example, or the Zumwalt destroyer which doesn't have a clear mission profile. The F-35 is particularly egregious because it's designed to spend money and do everything while being a master at none of those things.

The USSR had its own military-industrial complex which helped bankrupt it. When you divert so many resources into an arms race that doesn't get tested by actual conflicts (not talking about insurgencies here) that produces an exponential "boondoggling" effect. Then to keep it going costs more and more, while accomplishing less and less. The Soviets were relatively easy to beat because they simply didn't have the economic resources of the West but were trying to compete on an equal level. Therefore, the U.S. could progressively grind them into dust.

It isn't quite like that any more, if anything the situation has reversed where China can utilize relatively limited amount of resources to compete because of less bloat (although there certainly is bloat) and a different strategy – their military doctrine is focused around fighting and winning a defensive war in their region, not trying to go head-to-head against the U.S. on a global scale. And the defense is always stronger than the offense. So the Chinese air force is weaker than the U.S. air force, given that it's primarily a homeland-defense force and not a global force, while the Chinese navy is now larger than the U.S. navy at least by the raw number of battleforce ships – although fewer carriers of course. And that number is going to rise dramatically during this decade. They're able to steer resources where it counts, and it's the Chinese navy that is getting the hot shit right now and sparkling new stuff. Also the missile forces.

About the missiles: they also combine lots and lots of land-based missiles with their air force and navy to extend their reach into the Western Pacific. There's an old adage in naval warfare that a "ship can't fight a fort," meaning coastal forts defending harbors can't be knocked out by sea. A coastal fort is like a rock to a navy's scissors. You had to land marines somewhere else to then sneak up and attack the fort from behind to clear the way for the ships to take the harbor. Well, in the modern age, China is the fort. It's impossible for the U.S. navy to "defeat" it. And those missiles can travel hundreds of miles into the sea and they're working on ways to have those missiles track and hit ships.
>>

 No.385031

File: 1626582272071.jpg ( 96.8 KB , 1200x900 , HermannGoering.jpg )

>>385025
>Air-Force.
>Pretentious.
Reactionary prole and lumpen grunts join the army.
Proles who think its the 'safest job in the service' join the navy.
The guy thats going to be in charge of the fascist Ordo Neuvo council or whatever joins the airforce.
>>

 No.385045

File: 1626582656387-0.jpg ( 339.6 KB , 1200x800 , message-editor_15444869239….jpg )

File: 1626582656387-1.jpg ( 251.29 KB , 1192x800 , message-editor_15444913461….jpg )

>>385031
Yep. Goering. It's always the fucking air force. The USAF even has their own weeb sword because they don't really have traditions of their own that go back before WW2, so they come up with this shit. This is what an American fascist regime would look like as an alternative to tilting over one day and collapsing like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Late Byzantine Empire.
>>

 No.385590

>>384961
It will never happen.
Any Chinese attack on Taiwan will be reciprocated by the Japanese, and shortly after, if China will not achieve an instant victory, the US would intervene
>>

 No.385596

>>385590
>Japan will intervene.
Non-Existent military and their foreign minister already said they dont intend to declare war china for Taipei anyway
>>

 No.385604

File: 1626608624551.jpg ( 20.55 KB , 300x308 , 1626582656387-0.jpg )

>>

 No.385614

File: 1626609032677.jpg ( 159.73 KB , 1200x676 , laughs.jpg )

>>385590
>by the Japanese
anon, US cold war plans in event of a conflict were that Japan would likely declare neutrality(after which the US would occupy key ports and bases) due to how easy it is to cripple an overpopulated island with missile strikes on infrastructure. If Japan did fight, they'd be out of the game in less than 48 hours
>>

 No.385636

>>385025
>Well, in the modern age, China is the fort. It's impossible for the U.S. navy to "defeat" it. And those missiles can travel hundreds of miles into the sea and they're working on ways to have those missiles track and hit ships.

cant ship based missiles travel thousands of miles though? A submarine in the atlantic can literally hit anything in north america im pretty sure. Try hitting a submerged sub from a land based fort when your target is miles of open ocean. The only thing to do is locate where its being launched and have a plane drop a torpedo right on top it or something
>>

 No.385650

>>385596
Their minister said a thing but their Defense Ministry document say otherwise.

>>385614
This is also true, but Japan is undergoing a creeping rearmament and nationalistic sentiment is being pushed more and more to the point of open revisionism about IJA itself.
>>

 No.385658

I'm no expert but the existence of viable nuclear deterrents makes invasion of a nuclear power seem extremely unlikely. Protracted economic espionage (as already in progress on all sides, see state-sponsored advanced persistent threats on infrastructure).
>>

 No.385692

>>385658
what about cyber war
>>

 No.385710

>>385045
I recognize that sword!
>>

 No.385762

I read this article the other day that goes into it. For the most part it reads like this guy's made up head canon, but he does raise several points.

1. The US military is currently not outfitted to successfully combat a threat like China from the perspective of its naval and air fleet configurations. Currently these fleets are optimized for ground support operations rather than conventional naval battles or air-to-air or air to sea combat.

2.The US's best strategy would be a naval blockade rather than an invasion.

3. The war would revolve around Taiwan rather than a catastrophic ground invasion of either of the belligerent's mainlands.

6. It will mainly be a naval war

5. China could very well win.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210718130625/https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/08/02/why-we-might-lose-a-war-with-china/

Also as to what you said about Taiwan producing semiconductors, this is merely some contingent fact which could change through market forces or other pressures. Taiwan doesn't produce semiconductors because of some essential attribute of Taiwan that makes it good at it. China wants Taiwan for two main reasons, ideological–to eradicate the last vestige of the Chinese Republic, and geostrategic, to control the sea lanes and waters around China. Any other country in the world would love to replace Taiwan's role in the supply chain were it disrupted by politics and in fact there have been state-backed attempts to decouple and onshore chip production from TSMC in several major consumer countries.
>>

 No.385782

>>385762
For anyone who wants to read the article, the archive didn't capture the full text

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/08/02/why-we-might-lose-a-war-with-china/#slide-1
>>

 No.385786

>>384998
Then don't sound like a fed.
>>

 No.385812

>>384985
The army sucks as well. The main problem of the U.S military and really the U.S in general is the insane corruption. We all know the U.S send more on the military than the next 10 nations combined but the majority of the money is overhead from scams and private contractors. For what thr U.S spends they get the equivalent of what the Chinese. Give or take advantages/disadvantages here or there. And most of the those advantages are living off the pre-bush cold war legacy of the military. Such as the F-25 and aircraft carriers. The U.S hasn't made any significant advancements and is falling behind when it comes to cyber warfare, missile and artillery technology. They have drone technology(which still has a massive overhead due to corruption) but other countries are catching up and worse yet were seeing terror organizations adopting drone technology. Meaning in the future any moderately funded rebel group can field an airforce. The way the U.S military is ran now is unsustainable. They aren't in any real war and it's still an annual trillion bucks to run it. I can't imagine how long the government would be able to maintain during a real conflict.
>>

 No.385816

>>384991
Alot of people forget that more funding =/= more productivity, think about how Disney pumps out 200 mil+ budget movies that flop hard
It's like that but with Raytheon Boeing etc, they tend to pocket most of it and use the rest to make dumb shit too expensive for any practical applications
>>

 No.385825

>>385812
>They have drone technology
Whose effectiveness is mostly a gigantic scam:
http://www.killchain.org/read-online
>>

 No.385842

File: 1626619549354.jpg ( 79.31 KB , 791x718 , nj6fb9su6pz21.jpg )

Lot's of talk about the Navy ITT but I don't see them doing much before something is done about China's missile defence system.
I'd imagine a war with China would go something like
>Initial bombing campaign
>Army occupies footholds on the coast
>USAF makes Vietnam looks like childs play while the army does fuck all vs both urban and rural guerilla fighters
>This goes on for 10-20 years before the US withdraws. 10s of millions of Chinese civilians are dead and the country lays in ruin
>The CPC still exists, no peace treaty signed, innumerable war crimes committed, but Hegemony is maintained
Then again, maybe I'm giving the USA too much credit and picrel is the plan
I don't think such a war would happen any time soon though and certainly not over Taiwan.
>>

 No.385858

>>385650
> to the point of open revisionism about IJA itself.
Japan has literally never said their actions in WWII were wrong
>>

 No.385866

>>385009
>to normalize nuclear warfare
That's a good thing. You can't win against an empire without launching a barrage of nukes. If we ever hope of winning against capitalism it's the nukes that will do it, not theory.
>>

 No.385869

>>385842
I doubt it would be that easy to overrun chinese air defenses, modern manpads alone are a massive pain in the ass for airforce.
And without airforce dominating the sky it would be a good old boots on the ground bloodbath.
>>

 No.385882

File: 1626621614671.jpg ( 494.4 KB , 1400x871 , see.jpg )

>>385842
>that fucking picture
God, just imagine cqc fighting in a fucking hazmat suit in decorations of a literal nuclear fallout as you have only minutes left to live as your body falls apart from all the radiation poisoning.
And they thought ww1 and 2 was bad.
>>

 No.385896

>>385869
>I doubt it would be that easy to overrun chinese air defenses
I doubt it's even possible to get many fighter planes or drones into Chinese airspace, their strategy is to dump rocket saturation barrages on any airbase and carrier-ship in range, if conflict arises. There are still long range bombers but without fighter protection those don't do much.
>>

 No.385916

It will probably be like their current attempts to overthrow Cuba. Heaps of spam across social media and fake news

Footage of Asian gusanos protesting in USA will be described i the media as protests in China and they will declare that USA is almost winning
>>

 No.385917

>>385916
Leftypol will be raided by Hongcucks spamming about how Gommulism has always failed due to having no iPhone
>>

 No.385939

>>384961
>Would the US mount a successful ground invasion of mainland china? What about China successfully taking Taiwan and holding the worlds semiconductor capacity? What about naval battles in the pacific? Surprise nuclear attack on Hawaii?
literally all of this is impossible
>>

 No.385954

>>385842
I dont think the us can justify the losses they'd sustain just reaching mainland
>>

 No.385955

File: 1626624387434.gif ( 11.74 KB , 450x320 , yangtze_enc.gif )

hmmmm, sure would be a shame if someone were to…..i dunno, bomb the dam that holds up the yangtze river
>>

 No.385957

>>384961
>Could USA ground invade China
No.
>Could China take Taiwan
Yes.
>Naval battles
No.
>Nuclear war
No.
>inevitable?
No.
>who will win?
China.
>>

 No.386306

>>385842
The

PLA ROCKET FORCE

is going to rock the American military's world like a hurricane. You gotta realize here that the U.S. military is worried that China will destroy its Pacific bases with hundreds of ballistic missiles (a fraction of the total) in the opening hours of a conflict. Kadena AFB is gonna get hit with ballistic missiles. Guam could be hit. A U.S. invasion of the mainland where there are 1.4 billion Chinese is just not going to happen.
>>

 No.386321

>>385916
At these point this strategy seems to only exist to reassure the citizens of the empire rather promote an uprising in the targeted country. It's a domestic psyop more than anything.
>>

 No.386340

File: 1626640286054.png ( 81.8 KB , 690x260 , Threegorges.png )

>>385955
Three Gorges Dam is deep inside China giving the Chinese Airforce more then enough time to shoot down US bombers.
>>

 No.386379

>>385957
>Naval battles
<Yes.
>Nuclear war
<Yes.
>inevitable?
<Yes.
>who will win?
<Nobody.
fix'd
>>

 No.386484

>>385596
Japan has a huge military. It doesn't compare to the US or China, but they have a lot of soldiers and high-end hardware.
>>

 No.386523

>>385842
>US even landing on China
do anons think China is some backwater country? The PLAN has numeric and qualitative superiority in the area they'd be fighting in
>>

 No.386547

>>386340
Its clear that in such a scenario US would deploy some kind of hypersonic shit.
No single group of planes could get even close to China's coast as of now.
>>

 No.386558

>>384961
>Would the US mount a successful ground invasion of mainland china?
LMAO
>>

 No.386665

US can't powerpoject a huge conventional army in asia
>>

 No.386668

>>385955
TRUST THE PLAN
-Q
>>

 No.386670

>>385955
The french won the sino-french war by just doing a river blockade
>>

 No.399981

>>384961
american imperial power is already losing it's grip as the rate of profit continues to plummit, and their economy's corpse is dragged along by speculative investments and bubbles, whereas china's economy continues to outpace theirs. they are in the final death throes of empire, and china will inevitably jump on the opportunity to establish itself as the one true world economic superpower.
>>

 No.400004

Honestly I think it's more likely for China to launch a naval landing on US soil than vice versa.

Unless all of NATO is fighting China, the USA can't win without nuking everything and destroying the world thus ruining the point of winning in the first place.
>>

 No.400058

US invading China would be a pipe dream, assuming the mainland is somehow untouched by nukes.
>>

 No.400331

>>384961
>Surprise nuclear attack on Hawaii?
I hear glowfags and rightoid vermin say this, but why on earth would they nuke Hawaii of all places? Seems like a retarded opening move that's mian strategic consequence is terrify the the entirety of Burgerdom, radlibs included, into a war frenzy.
>>

 No.400333

>>400320
>We don't have to, we just defend korea
You're not going to defend shit burger, you will sit on your fat ass all day eating high carb shit like the fat pig you are.
>>

 No.400336

File: 1627204958043.jpg ( 33.86 KB , 640x640 , 1627041768932.jpg )

>Would the US mount a successful ground invasion of mainland china?
No. China has known its terrain and has had a chance to upgrade their military ever since the Japanese invasion of WWII. The Yanks can do nothing but drone strike the shit out of it, and that won't work given the fact that China likely has tech to bring them to heel.

>What about China successfully taking Taiwan and holding the worlds semiconductor capacity?

Now to that I doubt. The USA has multiple military bases and can mobilise against China quickly should it pull off an invasion.

>What about naval battles in the pacific?

Again, also doubtful that China would win in the long run should it do so. Even if it did win in skirmishes, it would have to destroy and/or occupy US bases in order for this to happen. We've yet to see if China would be willing to utilise mercenaries/ proxies in military activities.

Surprise nuclear attack on Hawaii?
Why would China launch a nuke on Hawaii and what would be their reason to? It's out of character for China to nuke potential customers and waste life for the sake of proving a point.

>Is it inevitable?

Maybe, depending on how the US acts. I doubt it'll be China that shoots the first shot.

>and who will win, provided it is in the future (2030+)??

At this given point, given the fact that China has been making new allies, deals, and having nigh autocratic control over its economy, China will. The USA for even a CHANCE at victory requires mass nationalisation of its resources in order to sustain itself and for its bourgoise to be put on a tight leash lest it act against the USAs interest, all of which it hasn't entirely done.
>>

 No.400351

File: 1627206336352.png ( 1.89 MB , 1080x960 , ClipboardImage.png )

Say that two or more nuclear powers with a credible shot at nuking each other go to full on war. However, they agree to not use nukes while plotting to disable each other's ability to do so .

Could we have a forever war to forestall the falling rate of profit?
Would morale plummet as everyone suffers while pointedly aware it's all pretend,no winning moves allowed(nukes), warfare so the capitalists can cause very real death, destruction and misery?

Obviously , this is the premise of "nineteen-eighty-four" but I don't think we could develop such ass backwards brainwashing with how communication technology is today.
Maybe they can agree on no-nuke pacts, forcing the lesser nations to take sides while leaving lots of land and people vying for colonization as the alternative is nuclear fire. Perhaps that could be the point, Africa and the middle east get left out, nuked and "settled", harvested for resources by slavelike labor from lower rung allies?

Nuclear colonies, where privilege is measured by your exposure to radiation. Doubleplusgood too, then they can finally make eugenics real by claiming decades of living in an irradiated wasteland after relocation has made any group lesser peoples with flawed genetics fit only to toil in exchange for uncertain protection from further nukes.
>>

 No.400354

>>400352
Weak bait
>>

 No.400379

>>400339
Attacking a dam to drown millions of civilians, is a warcrime of the highest severity. The Chinese response to such a crime would be devastating. The US simply does not have the defenses to make this strategy viable.
>>

 No.400391

>>400385
You display reckless hubris, not superiority. You clearly have no clue about how destructive industrial technology can be if the gloves come off.
>>

 No.400399

>>385636
not me but I dont think you get the point: Its not about range or the rockets themselves. The same rocket fired from land or from sea will have the same range and power. But while any rocket put on a ship can be used on land as well, not every rocket that can be used on land can be used (effectively) from the sea, as ships are subject to limitations in size and physical resilience. Also, if a land structure gets damaged it wont sink, a ship very well might.

This makes striking from the sea a lot more complex and expensive and with clear limitations in the scope of attacks.
>>

 No.400414

>>385955
ofc, but at that point you can just start nuking each other. You would kill Millions or even tens of millions of civilians, considering how many died the last time this happened.

Needless to say this would make the US into a complete pariah, abroad and at home, as it would functionally the same as using a nuke, and could very well lead into a nuclear escalation.

All this with little strategic worth outside of pure damage to civilians.
>>

 No.400446

>>400422
tru dat, although it kinda depends on the setting, if the war would start now, you would be correct. But the PRC has seen this weakness and is expanding its nuclear arsenal. Will it be enough in time? I dont know

Its possible that an escalation would lead to the available nukes being dropped in Korea, Japan and India, which would do unimaginable damage in itself

but there is still the optics of this, both internally and externally. externally, it would make the US to a hitlerian villain in a heartbeat. But most importantly, internally it would have the effect of the Tet offensive x1000. The American public couldnt even stomach vietnam, what do you think will happen if millions of civilians drown to death?

Ofc one could also imagine a scenario in which the US would not care about the negatives. And at that point it would be a lot simpler to just nuke china to the ground.

There is no point or scenario at which destroying the three gorges dam is the best course of action.
>>

 No.400467

File: 1627213311469.jpg ( 15.92 KB , 480x360 , hqdefault.jpg )

>>384997
>also china would nuke the west coast
I wish man, I wish.
>>

 No.400487

>>400467
Even better if they nuked Florida instead. Trump lives there. But as a consequence America would emerge victorious and China would be in big trouble.
>>

 No.400506

>>400457
Why are you assuming russia will do nothing as nukes are coming their way, just hoping they are all for China? Just takes one oopsie launch towards Moscow.
>>

 No.400537

>>400529
Article 9 of Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation

>When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

Unique IPs: 40

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome