Thailand destroyed China in aerial combat practice
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-chinese-air-force-lost-war-game-fighter-jet-104247
If the US on its own went to war against Russia and China at the same time
-
If the US dares to try occupying China's most important cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong - millions upon millions of Chinese will descend on the occupying infantry and rip them limb from limb. It will be a blood bath to make the siege of Stalingrad look like a kindergarten class.
This isn't Call of Duty.You didn’t even read what he wrote. He wrote that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to occupy Russia and China and I tend to agree with this. But that’s nowhere close to the objective of the US which would be denying any Chinese success. You can see from Ukraine how easy it’s for the US to deny any Russian success just proving 30 years old tech.
-
Exactly. This is what I wanted to write but you beat me: the political objectives of the Afghan war and a war against China are quite different. In a hypothetical war against China the objective would be to deny any Chinese victory at an enormous cost for Beijing, which is way easier than defeating and occupying China.
Topics like this makes it clear that this place is full of redditors instead of actual economists from CHYMPS.
Quite obvious that US could dominate the seas and the air in a war against Russia and China, and also they could defend their allies like Poland, Japan, Taiwan.
Quite obvious that is impossible to occupy and pacify countries like Russia and China.
Goal of US in a war like this would be occupy important cities close to the border and try to sue for a favorable peace treaty.
Americans lose wars because of hubris like this. Just try it against China and see what happens.
-
If the US dares to try occupying China's most important cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong - millions upon millions of Chinese will descend on the occupying infantry and rip them limb from limb. It will be a blood bath to make the siege of Stalingrad look like a kindergarten class.
This isn't Call of Duty.lol no way Chinese civilians will do that. Just no way.
But if you want to go you go.
-
If the US dares to try occupying China's most important cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong - millions upon millions of Chinese will descend on the occupying infantry and rip them limb from limb. It will be a blood bath to make the siege of Stalingrad look like a kindergarten class.
This isn't Call of Duty.You didn’t even read what he wrote. He wrote that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to occupy Russia and China and I tend to agree with this. But that’s nowhere close to the objective of the US which would be denying any Chinese success. You can see from Ukraine how easy it’s for the US to deny any Russian success just proving 30 years old tech.
Meh. Poor eyesight and I read the post on a small phone screen.
I maintain my point re occupation of cities. The US has not prevailed against Russia in Ukraine - we have a long way to go before that war ends.
Try to get cute occupying Chinese cities and all hell breaks loose.
-
If the US dares to try occupying China's most important cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong - millions upon millions of Chinese will descend on the occupying infantry and rip them limb from limb. It will be a blood bath to make the siege of Stalingrad look like a kindergarten class.
This isn't Call of Duty.lol no way Chinese civilians will do that. Just no way.
But if you want to go you go.They don't need millions of civilians. They have enough fighting age males to stock up the army.
-
Lose wars? The Americans had control of Kabul within months of invasion and could maintain control with few thousands troops on the ground. They could have kept that indefinitely at zero or no cost, but it became politically infeasible. Compre that with the Russian attempt to get Kyiv, and you’ll understand what’s the difference. If you want to compare the two armies, just Google “battle of Khasham”.
With China it’s going to be a naval and aerial battle. Unfortunately the US has not been involved in naval battles since October 1944, so it’s hard to say. But we can study what happened in recent battles of the French Navy in Misrata, the Battle of Al Faw in Iraq. If you are willing to go back we know what happened during the 1988 engagement between US and Iran and during the Falklands war
Exactly. This is what I wanted to write but you beat me: the political objectives of the Afghan war and a war against China are quite different. In a hypothetical war against China the objective would be to deny any Chinese victory at an enormous cost for Beijing, which is way easier than defeating and occupying China.
Topics like this makes it clear that this place is full of redditors instead of actual economists from CHYMPS.
Quite obvious that US could dominate the seas and the air in a war against Russia and China, and also they could defend their allies like Poland, Japan, Taiwan.
Quite obvious that is impossible to occupy and pacify countries like Russia and China.
Goal of US in a war like this would be occupy important cities close to the border and try to sue for a favorable peace treaty.
Americans lose wars because of hubris like this. Just try it against China and see what happens.
-
If the US dares to try occupying China's most important cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong - millions upon millions of Chinese will descend on the occupying infantry and rip them limb from limb. It will be a blood bath to make the siege of Stalingrad look like a kindergarten class.
This isn't Call of Duty.You didn’t even read what he wrote. He wrote that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to occupy Russia and China and I tend to agree with this. But that’s nowhere close to the objective of the US which would be denying any Chinese success. You can see from Ukraine how easy it’s for the US to deny any Russian success just proving 30 years old tech.
Meh. Poor eyesight and I read the post on a small phone screen.
I maintain my point re occupation of cities. The US has not prevailed against Russia in Ukraine - we have a long way to go before that war ends.
Try to get cute occupying Chinese cities and all hell breaks loose.Ok, then it’s a comprehension issue. US doesn’t need to occupy absolutely anything, just denying Chinese and Russian objectives.
If you look at Ukraine, US has been able to achieve that at a tiny cost given how poorly the Russian army is performing.
-
Simple. It boils down to the question of which side has more nvkes
Lol, that’s how USSR used to think in the 1980s when the US moved away from non conventional weapons. Having 300 nukes (like China) or 1500 m(like Russia and the US) is actually the same: they are both more than enough to wreck the enemy.
-
Lose wars? The Americans had control of Kabul within months of invasion and could maintain control with few thousands troops on the ground. They could have kept that indefinitely at zero or no cost, but it became politically infeasible. Compre that with the Russian attempt to get Kyiv, and you’ll understand what’s the difference. If you want to compare the two armies, just Google “battle of Khasham”.
Yes, lose wars. The US occupied Afghanistan, got lazy and left it to the Taliban 20 years later. That is losing. The Taliban won by waiting out the US.
Over 2,000 soldiers died and over 20,000 were injured to give the territory back to the enemy. And at a price tag in the trillions. A complete waste of life, money and time for nothing, and we taught our adversaries to win by using unconventional tactics.
With China it’s going to be a naval and aerial battle. Unfortunately the US has not been involved in naval battles since October 1944, so it’s hard to say. But we can study what happened in recent battles of the French Navy in Misrata, the Battle of Al Faw in Iraq. If you are willing to go back we know what happened during the 1988 engagement between US and Iran and during the Falklands war
This is all speculation. You don't know how a war with China would go.
Let's try not to find out, because we're not prepared for it.
-
Ok, then it’s a comprehension issue. US doesn’t need to occupy absolutely anything, just denying Chinese and Russian objectives.
If you look at Ukraine, US has been able to achieve that at a tiny cost given how poorly the Russian army is performing.Let's try to comprehend how well the US is denying Russian objectives. Sanctions have been ineffective and we have a way to go before we see how the Ukraine war ends.
Re denying Chinese objectives, I guess we'll see how many ineffective sanctions we can slap on China when the time comes.
-
I guess the thing is the whole Ukraine thing has demonstrated two things. First: the USSR’s combat doctrine and equipment are terrible and trivially dominated by kit bought from a local army surplus store and a pdf of a 1980 NATO combat manual . Any military based on Soviet doctrine is taking a long hard look at things. China isn’t going to try anything because it’s not clear anything they did would work.
Second: the math of occupation hasn’t changed, which is actually a big deal. Operations where you can take and hold a city with a couple thousand troops are the minority, only executed by one country with overwhelming air superiority (which probably wouldn’t happen)
-
In fact, the closest thing to a head to head engagement- when the Wagner group tried to hit a position of 25 or so rangers- the US Army turned 800 mercenaries into pink mist. Mostly I think people dismissed that as irregulars versus elites. In hindsight, Wagners about as good as it gets under their doctrine.
-
Kiev is not Kabul
Lose wars? The Americans had control of Kabul within months of invasion and could maintain control with few thousands troops on the ground. They could have kept that indefinitely at zero or no cost, but it became politically infeasible. Compre that with the Russian attempt to get Kyiv, and you’ll understand what’s the difference. If you want to compare the two armies, just Google “battle of Khasham”.
With China it’s going to be a naval and aerial battle. Unfortunately the US has not been involved in naval battles since October 1944, so it’s hard to say. But we can study what happened in recent battles of the French Navy in Misrata, the Battle of Al Faw in Iraq. If you are willing to go back we know what happened during the 1988 engagement between US and Iran and during the Falklands warExactly. This is what I wanted to write but you beat me: the political objectives of the Afghan war and a war against China are quite different. In a hypothetical war against China the objective would be to deny any Chinese victory at an enormous cost for Beijing, which is way easier than defeating and occupying China.
Topics like this makes it clear that this place is full of redditors instead of actual economists from CHYMPS.
Quite obvious that US could dominate the seas and the air in a war against Russia and China, and also they could defend their allies like Poland, Japan, Taiwan.
Quite obvious that is impossible to occupy and pacify countries like Russia and China.
Goal of US in a war like this would be occupy important cities close to the border and try to sue for a favorable peace treaty.
Americans lose wars because of hubris like this. Just try it against China and see what happens.
-
US jet fighters did this, not soldiers. The soldiers hid and the jets came into save the day.
In fact, the closest thing to a head to head engagement- when the Wagner group tried to hit a position of 25 or so rangers- the US Army turned 800 mercenaries into pink mist. Mostly I think people dismissed that as irregulars versus elites. In hindsight, Wagners about as good as it gets under their doctrine.
-
Russia: aesthetics matter
America: Just win, baby
Scoreboard: America 800- Russia 0US jet fighters did this, not soldiers. The soldiers hid and the jets came into save the day.
In fact, the closest thing to a head to head engagement- when the Wagner group tried to hit a position of 25 or so rangers- the US Army turned 800 mercenaries into pink mist. Mostly I think people dismissed that as irregulars versus elites. In hindsight, Wagners about as good as it gets under their doctrine.