War games suggest the US will lose fast if it confronts China(trtworld.com)
trtworld.com
War games suggest the US will lose fast if it confronts China
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/war-games-suggest-the-us-will-lose-fast-if-it-confronts-china-44960
9 comments
Can link be changed to the referenced source which has much more information: https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/were-going-to-lose-fast-...
Can we not use AMP?
* https://news.yahoo.com/news/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-f...
* https://news.yahoo.com/news/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-f...
I second this. The current article linked on HN has very little information, and this one provided by didibus is much better.
My half-cynical take: The US Air Force successfully conducted a PR exercise designed to argue why it needs more budget.
China is engaging in fifth generational warfare (information, hacking, economics) against the US. How can you win a war if you don't even know it's happening?
You seem to be saying that we don't know it's happening. And yet that you do. That combination seems improbable.
Being aware that it's happening as an enthusiast and being aware as an Average Joe are very different. We're not having this conversation much in society right now. Defending against fifth generational warfare explicitly requires an informed population, not just a large military.
> an informed population
At what stage did we ever had that? I doubt any country could claim their population is informed.
So I wouldn't use that as a requirement as its unattainable.
At what stage did we ever had that? I doubt any country could claim their population is informed.
So I wouldn't use that as a requirement as its unattainable.
If it's unattainable then the country with the strongest propaganda (like China) will come out on top.
Once again, blame can be heaped upon the goddamned Boomers.
Their incessant desire to keep running shit, to constantly keep their standard of living not only the same, but *increasing* during their old age - has been the catalyst for this problem.
The offshoring to China of manufacturing and electronics assembly has given China an enormous economic advantage. At least the "Greatest Generation" had the good grace to retire and die instead of trying to suck everything dry like some kind of economic vampire. And just like vampires of lore, the Boomers destroy everything with which they come into contact.
500 years from now, historians are going to marvel at this generation that crippled multiple generations after it due their avarice and entitlement.
Their incessant desire to keep running shit, to constantly keep their standard of living not only the same, but *increasing* during their old age - has been the catalyst for this problem.
The offshoring to China of manufacturing and electronics assembly has given China an enormous economic advantage. At least the "Greatest Generation" had the good grace to retire and die instead of trying to suck everything dry like some kind of economic vampire. And just like vampires of lore, the Boomers destroy everything with which they come into contact.
500 years from now, historians are going to marvel at this generation that crippled multiple generations after it due their avarice and entitlement.
I have seen young people from US in my travels who were just as entitled as the old people from there.
At the same time US is still a great place, people just have to accept that life is not as easy as they thought there.
At the same time US is still a great place, people just have to accept that life is not as easy as they thought there.
> Once again, blame can be heaped upon the goddamned Boomers.
As someone who actually believes there is a lot of merit to this stance, you do almost nothing to persuade anyone of its truth. You're making a bold claim with very little evidence. I don't know how much boomers are to blame for certain problems today, but I don't believe it's all of them like your comment implies.
I genuinely would enjoy hearing more evidence to support your claim if you have any to share. So far you've only used deductive reasoning based on principles, which is essentially worthless when talking about something as complicated as the world economy and military might over a timespan of decades.
As someone who actually believes there is a lot of merit to this stance, you do almost nothing to persuade anyone of its truth. You're making a bold claim with very little evidence. I don't know how much boomers are to blame for certain problems today, but I don't believe it's all of them like your comment implies.
I genuinely would enjoy hearing more evidence to support your claim if you have any to share. So far you've only used deductive reasoning based on principles, which is essentially worthless when talking about something as complicated as the world economy and military might over a timespan of decades.
You think thar offshoring is done by millenials?
The Clausewitzian Trinity[1] ain't lying. The military, societal, and elected leadership isn't united, (stipulating competence).
What is more astounding is that we could be surrounded by foes devouring us, and our media would assure us that everything is just hugs and cupcakes.
[1] https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/Trinity...
What is more astounding is that we could be surrounded by foes devouring us, and our media would assure us that everything is just hugs and cupcakes.
[1] https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/Trinity...
> "The future confrontation would continue for more than a decade"?
[Edit: I should say this sentence is in the originally posted article, not the longer one from Yahoo]
Pretty sure one or both sides would launch nuclear weapons long before then, resulting in a swift (albeit very unhappy) end to the war.
[Edit: I should say this sentence is in the originally posted article, not the longer one from Yahoo]
Pretty sure one or both sides would launch nuclear weapons long before then, resulting in a swift (albeit very unhappy) end to the war.
Why do you think MAD doesn’t work now?
MAD isn't a tactic. Its a result of the belief that your opponent wont do "X" because if the MAD concept.
The problem is that we're likely to get a MAD result because everyone knows of the MAD meme and thinks that their opponent is thinking.
The problem is that we're likely to get a MAD result because everyone knows of the MAD meme and thinks that their opponent is thinking.
Yes it’s just an emergent state of two or more actors doing the somewhat sensible thing (not wanting their own people to be annihilated). The question is still why this wouldn’t work, since it did work (albeit very riskily) through the entire Cold War. AFAICT no relevant variable has changed.
> Why do you think MAD doesn’t work now?
I don't understand your question.
I don't understand your question.
Point is that they wouldn't use nuclear because of mutually assured destruction
A decade long war between China and the US (as the article describes) would soon be a total war, which means using every weapon at your disposal.
Both sides had chemical weapons in World War II; neither side used them. Yet WWII was a total war.
That is, MAD or something MAD-like can restrain use of particular weapons, even in a total war.
That is, MAD or something MAD-like can restrain use of particular weapons, even in a total war.
Most conventional strategists believe a nuclear war wouldn't need to last a decade, as both parties would destroy themselves. Given the heavy civilian casualties and the decimation on the economies and infrastructure, the cost of a nuclear war and mutually assured destruction (MAD) outweigh the potential benefits.
The same go for modern conventional warfare.
[deleted]
Unless I missed it in the article what exactly is the simulated attack? Are they flying real planes over US targets? Wouldn’t that in and of itself be considered an act of aggression?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation It's something they've been doing for a long term. No idea if it's accurate and it probably isn't very, but not sure what else they should be doing.