To be specific, we have no aircraft carriers in the Pacific.
- Thread starter JackRussellDawg
- Start date
We could, but what do we bomb? It's hit & run tactics by them. We'd have to know of a valid target before they act. Striking a location after they launch is a waste.
They're well-funded by Iran. We have limited intel that isn't real-time (i.e. we need someone "inside" to give us details...a pipe dream, imo) which sounds good. But, by the time it's "real time" & we react...there isn't much to hit. And if we did "hit" it, you're not doing a lot of damage to the whole operation.
Iran is the center of gravity that we are failing to neutralize, using soft or hard power.
Short of launching nuclear strikes America's ability to attack China, Russia, or Iran is a fantasy. Of course, none of them can attack us either.
We have small amount of combat ready soldiers. Yes, we have excellent special forces but the number of grunts we have ready to tote a rifle and spend months on a moving front is what like 30,000? And the combat experience from the GWOT guys has largely been eradicated by Biden's COVID regime. It would take a year, minimum, for America to mobilize an invasion force capable of landing on mainland China.
And the warrior class of America has been completely demoralized over the last 20 years. How many white guys from the deep south, Texas, and Appalachia are going to be willing to die for a government that hates them in 2024?
But let's presume we could successfully land. How long would it take us to run out of artillery? I'm not sure what our stockpile of 155 mm looks like, I'm sure we have given a large amount to Ukraine and Israel, our current production capability is sitting at around 30,000 per month if you believe the pentagon.
Russia has been shelling Ukraine at the rate of around 8,000-10,000 per day. We would exceed our yearly production after one month of fighting. Put simply we could not shell the Chinese more than they could shell us.
How long would it take us to run out of tanks? Aren't we making around 15 a year?
Ultimately war still boils down to infantry, tanks, and artillery. We have serious deficiencies in all three areas.
We also are about 20 years behind on hypersonic missiles and missile defense systems.
America's military can't be rebuilt until the cartel that is the military industrial complex no longer controls American military philosophy.
All of this is presuming we have capable military commanders and a president capable of uniting the American people for a long term war effort.
I'm glad we've decided to draw the line at microchips after we gave them all our manufacturing capacity, institutional knowledge, and material wealth.
But putting aside the obvious which is we could just make microchips here, American boys have no business being sent to die in order to protect the luxury of modern technology.
I seriously can't believe we have people on this site believing it would be a good idea to get in a hot war with China over Taiwan.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have some random valid points....but, your conclusion is severely flawed.
Your conclusions are entirely based off of inherently flawed assumptions. As I said, you make some valid points, but your conclusions are flat-out wrong.
You literally have no idea of what the US military is capable of, based off your posts. Zero idea.
Can you elaborate and explain how my conclusions are flat out wrong?
I genuinely want to know.
Sure. I'll give more details tomorrow. (it's late & I have to go to work 🥸)
There is not a single target anywhere on the Earth that we can not utterly destroy w/ conventional weapons, if we choose to do it. There are other types of "kills" that involve removing specific functions to any single target, for set amounts of time...those are much easier to achieve. But, for the purpose of this post...I'm making it simple: total destruction.
Is this as simple as launching an aircraft and firing a single weapon? No. It's an entire host of support functions. But, it can absolutely be done, even at scales necessary to engage in total war...if we choose to. Do not underestimate inherent capability that is rarely required, still available, and usually hand-cuffed.
Are we in danger of losing this? Yes. I have made this point more than once. It's a slow drain. But, as of TODAY, we are more than capable of defeating anybody that we choose to.
1. Where did you get the incredibly low number of 30K? We had 32K Marine Reserves as recently as '22. Your number is off by hundreds of thousands, unless I misunderstood your point.
2. While COVID certainly reduced numbers, it's far short of 'eradication'...absolutely not "largely" eradicated. That's gross hyperbole. Leadership positions, across all services, are filled by personnel w/ combat experience. I'd be shockd if any Senior leader at any level lacked combat experience.
3. Your assumption of:
a) If an invasion is required of mainland China is even required
b) What that invasion would look like
c) What assets would be involved
....is flawed. You're assuming a scenario that is not inline with how we would address any Chinese aggression
The best part about the warrior class is the independence from simple political games. That's why it's the warrior class.
"Complete Demoralization" is hyperbole. Could it be better? Absolutely. But, the mission is the mission.
That is a definite recruiting problem, based on recent recruiting stats...since what you referenced (awkwardly, imo) has historically been a big part of our fighting force. I appreciate the effort to reach out & bring in "new" blood, but it's clearly been to the detriment of historical populations.
Bottom line: We need to figure out a way to do both. New 'populations' w/o making 'old' populations feel unwelcome. This is where effective leadership is key. We have a mix of both very effective & idiotic military leadership.
That's a pedantic example, imo. Fortunately, we are not beholden to any single type of munition. Plans are flexible, for a reason.
You're assuming that shelling anything Chinese is a viable option on the path to a "win". The very idea that localized shelling against a country that large would have any significant effect is short-sighted.
I promise you: If we are relying on artillery shells to defeat China, we've already lost. They have (at last I counted) 13 cities of more than 1M citizens. Shelling any one of those into submission is a losing strategy....let alone 13 (plus the rest of the country).
Bottom line: That (thankfully) is absolutely not a key component in our recipe to defeat China. I think your outlook of what War w/ them would look like is severely flawed.
Are we using tanks? Where would we use them? How? This isn't defending the Fulga Gap. It's freaking China.
If you think that's how we defeat China...you have not been paying attention or have zero idea how the US wages war. That's not what "war boils down to".
Your idea of how we would approach conflict w/ China is inherently flawed...as in, you're coming from such an uninformed angle, that I cannot begin to address how many assumptions you have wrong.
Bottom Line: Your Army-centric thinking is decades old...and there is no Army leader at any level for the past 20 years that would share your idea of what it takes to defeat China.
Nope.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. What we need is proper funding. I know the public has no idea how bad simple & basic things like BUILDINGS are. The DOD is largely not funding building new buildings (including those destroyed by natural disasters) because the price tag is too high. They're spending way too much money to "kick the can" and prolong usage past the expiration date. But, there is a high bill coming...unless we literally want everyone working out of tents.
...and this is not hyperbole. I cannot stress this issue. Basic infrastructure is very bad, to the point of mission failure.
At some point, the cold war and WWII-era buildings need to be replaced. But, we've been putting it off for decades...this doesn't include the investments we need to make to critical programs.
You're approaching political opinions. But, I'll say that in a large-scale war, the true all-stars of the military wield the needed influence.
Top level bureaucrats wield a lot of power for long term/strategic plans. But, actual waging of war will fall to the experts. I have full confidence that would prevail.
Latest posts
-
-
Hi! I’m in Ames, IA tonight. It’s currently -6*F headed down to -12*F…- Latest: WatkinsVillain
-
-
