Current strategy of Chinese military in hegemony conflict with United States. What is the end game here ?

[Marcin + 519]

Chinese military is technologically very backward in comparison to US military.

 

For contemporary US-China hegemony conflict the most important are naval assets.

Navy is the major military force used to control predominant transport routes of the modern world: sea lanes.  Sea lanes ensure both: access to important natural resources (like hydrocarbons) and safety of global trade - the backbone of modern economic development.

It is also important that US (like earlier British Empire) is mainly naval empire, contrary to Russia and China which are both land based empires. The reason is US is located in sparsely populated and isolated continent of America, and Russia and China are located at the center of the world in supercontinent Eurasia. US location is good for safety of its population but bad for maintaining hegemony.

 

Where technologically are different types of Chinese Navy ships:

 

Chinese aircraft carriers: US technology was there in 1948 (after Midway class carriers, before Forrestal class carriers): 71 years ago,

Chinese destroyers: US technology was there in 1985 (early Ticonderoga class cruisers/Arleigh Burke class destroyers, after Mk 41 VLS system was installed): 34 years ago,

Chinese frigates: US technology was there in 1985 (the same as with destroyers): 34 years ago,

Chinese nuclear attack submarines: US technology was there in 1967 (early Sturgeon/637 class vessels): 52 years ago,

Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines: US technology was there in 1961 (around Ethan Allen class/Lafayette class): 58 years ago.

 

Chinese Naval strategy makes use of its main advantages:

- low manufacturing costs,

- large industrial base in shipbuilding industry and generally the ability to scale up fast any manufacturing task,

- relatively modern missile technology.

 

Chinese strategy also makes use of US Navy main disadvantages:

-         long time of procurement processes of new vessels (up to 10 years),

-         very high inertia and slow changes of strategy in comparison to changing global dynamics in Navy warfare (15+ years).

 

The solution is achieving numerical superiority in areas where Chinese Navy is technologically near peer competitor with US Navy, with relatively small budget. With this solution Chinese Navy becomes in fast pace the near peer competitor of US Navy while buying additional time needed to close significant technological gaps.

 

In surface combatants:

Chinese Navy is close to US Navy in capabilities of destroyers and frigates.

Recent developments in missile technology negated usefulness of smaller number of larger vessels vs larger number of smaller vessels

and also uselfulness of aircraft carriers vs near peer competitors.

Chinese Navy also extensively utilizes smaller but capable vessels: corvettes for littoral missions in EEZ.

Chinese Navy build up, ships launched in 2019 versus maximum number of ships of the same contemporary classes launched in any year by US Navy:

17 Chinese 56A type corvettes launched in 2019  – 4 US Littoral Combat Ships (both classes together) launched in 2018,

11 Chinese multirole destroyers launched in 2019 (8 of 052D type and 3 of 055 type) – 5 Arleigh Burke multirole destroyers launched in 1994.

 

With the current pace of building new vessels China aims to achieve numerical parity and later superiority vs US Navy in Pacific about 2022-2023 and if needed numerical superiority against all fleets present in East Asia around 2025-2026.

Chinese ships are on average 2-3 times cheaper than their US equivalents.

[Rob Plant + 2,755]

You just couldn’t resist starting a thread like this 😂

you must dream of Chinese v USA hegemony war Marcin

gotta love you for it though!

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

you must dream of Chinese v USA hegemony war Marcin

I seriously hope not. 

[remake it + 288]

51 minutes ago, Marcin said:

For contemporary US-China hegemony conflict the most important are naval assets.

China will achieve its ambitions without the need for conflict as Trump is the inflection point and given China a downhill run.

[Marcin + 519]

38 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

You just couldn’t resist starting a thread like this 😂

you must dream of Chinese v USA hegemony war Marcin

gotta love you for it though!

I am anti-war, it is just interesting to watch this very complex and multi-layered conflict.

Seriously I think that the probability of China-US shooting war under President Trump is very, very small.

And I like Trump very much because he already shortened a period of global instability when the world is changing from unipolar to bipolar regime. Trump policies are self isolating United States and such politician  is needed for the period of transition.

I hope Trump will win re-election and continue his policies for the next 4 years.

Until next US president will come in January 2025, the world would be probably much more stable with bipolar G-2 structure more established.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Marcin
typo

[remake it + 288]

31 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I am anti-war, it is just interesting to watch this very complex and multi-layered conflict.

"Fake news."

(do you mean "trade war" as you appear to really mean "what @Marcinhas analyzed") 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Marcin said:

The solution is achieving numerical superiority in areas where Chinese Navy is technologically near peer competitor with US Navy, with relatively small budget. With this solution Chinese Navy becomes in fast pace the near peer competitor of US Navy while buying additional time needed to close significant technological gaps.

Not quite.  What you are overlooking is that Chinese ships are not designed to withstand combat damage.  Are they compartmentalized?  No.  Do they use heavy plate?  No.  Redundant internal systems including steering?  No.  Can the ship remain operational with a strike to the bridge?  No.  Do the Chinese have reactive armor?  No.  Gatling guns?  No.   One heavy hit, from a smart bomb or missile, and that Chinese ship is bye-bye.  

What those Chinese littoral combat ships are useful for is intimidating their neighbors, specifically the Philippines and Vietnam.  And that's it.  Those ships are laughable in combat against the US Navy; no chance, get blown out of the water.  It is precisely this reason that the Philippines specifically is attempting to cozy up to the Americans, and inviting the US Navy to re-occupy Subic Bay, and the Air Force to re-occupy Clark Field.  They see these Chinese vessels coming and even though those are lightweight they are still surface combatants that can and would project Chinese military might, and certainly do a forcible take-over of every single atoll in the South China Sea, and protect Chinese drillers in taking every single drop of oil, to the exclusion of everyone else.  And they can likely get away with it with the Vietnamese, whose navy (if you can call it that) consists of some light motorboats, but not against the USA.

The USA is in the current position of being "the policeman of the world," and whenever there is trouble anywhere on the planet, the rest of the world dials 9-1-1   [1-1-2 to you Europeans] and expects the USA to come running with its Navy, and also its Army.  And the victims dialing 9-1-1 also do not want to pay for that police service.  In the past the US Government and the American people have been mild about that and let the planet get a free ride on its policing services.  But being policeman has its costs, and those costs have escalated as a result of the US doing its police work in the countries of the Middle East (including Afghanistan in that descriptive).  Now the Americans are getting tired of being world policeman, and that starts to grate when you see old rivals such as Russia yet once again provoking trouble (in Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Georgia, Turkey, Syria, and Ukraine).  Of these, the one that likely most irritates the USA is the situation in Ukraine, where the naked land-grabs of Russia are so starkly on display.  And what irritates Trump specifically is that his predecessors did nothing, specifically Clinton  (with Yugoslavia) and Obama (with Crimea and the Donbas). 

So Mr. Trump now states, quite clearly, hey if you folks want policeman protection then you have to chip in and help fund it, and you better be nice to American interests.  If you don't, then not only do we no longer supply policeman services, but we will sanction your people and companies that actively work with our rivals, both States and terrorists, and if you are going to build pipelines to fund the Russians selling gas (and thereby developing the funds for more mischief) then we will sanction everyone involved, including the pipe-laying companies and ships, and we shall see how you like that.  

In large part, the policies of Trump's predecessors has been one of "containment," where you try to draw a line on some map and say:  "Hey, don't cross that."  Unfortunately the containment policies of George Kennan went out the window with the appointment of sycophants during the Bill Clinton administration, made even worse with the appointment of Paul Bremer, the silver-spoon kid from Connecticut. With those abysmal failures, it has become apparent that the US is not very good at nation-building, and Mr. Trump wants the USA out of that business. If the Europeans do not want to do it, and provide security, then the US will (eventually) bow out and enforce its interests by cruise missiles launched from drone aircraft.  Don't like it?  Too bad, so sad. 

Meanwhile the USA will take precisely the same attitude towards both China and Russia.  The days of some Russian ship doing a sea "bump" mini-collision against a US Navy ship are over.  I predict the next time some Russian (or Chinese) commander tries that stunt, he will get his bridge obliterated in a fierce salvo, the command of that ship all dead.  Then that ship gets sunk.  In the past, the Chinese have aggressively had these mid-air collisions with Navy patrol aircraft, forcing them down on Chinese soil  (Hainan Island), then forcing the US to come in and dismantle their plane, and take it out in pieces.  Those days are now gone.  Some US aircraft gets bumped in the skies and disabled, the entire air fleet from the base that aggressor plane flew out from will get obliterated by guided bombs, every aircraft, building, and runway destroyed.  Don't underestimate just how tough Mr. Trump can be.  He is not some feather like Clinton. 

[Marcin + 519]

15 hours ago, Marcin said:

The solution is achieving numerical superiority in areas where Chinese Navy is technologically near peer competitor with US Navy, with relatively small budget. With this solution Chinese Navy becomes in fast pace the near peer competitor of US Navy while buying additional time needed to close significant technological gaps.

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not quite.  What you are overlooking is that Chinese ships are not designed to withstand combat damage.  Are they compartmentalized?  No.  Do they use heavy plate?  No.  Redundant internal systems including steering?  No.  Can the ship remain operational with a strike to the bridge?  No.  Do the Chinese have reactive armor?  No.  Gatling guns?  No.   One heavy hit, from a smart bomb or missile, and that Chinese ship is bye-bye. 

Jan, opinion  that Destroyers 052D and 055 and frigates 54A are near peer competitors to US destroyers and cruisers is stated by US think tanks in various reports, also for US Congress and US DOD (like this famous yearly report).

The features you listed are typical for all modern destroyers commissioned in 21st century, apart from reactive armor which is never used on navy vessels.

Gatling guns is a good example where actually US Phalanx CIWS is considered worse than 5-6 of its major competitors from other countries. Chinese CIWS 730 and 1130 are better than Phalanx, but Russian Kashtan is the best because it also has missiles integrated in CIWS so effective firing range is extended from 3 km to 10 km. Recently US Navy was going to install sth similar to Kashtan on US destroyers, as Phalanx is 40 years old and obsolete on modern battlefield.

I am not the tube of Chinese propraganda, I just present information, which I find interesting and at the same time threatening our = NATO countries security.

Actually Chinese since 2018 try to conceal their naval build up, they ceased to inform about commisioned vessels, and the information about large numbers of launched vessels are provided (together with photo documentation) by amateur navy enthusiasts.

I am on the same side as you, although I do not think this is that important, facts=large number of launched Chinese vessels speak for themselves. I am also not happy, just like you, that Chinese dictatorship becomes so strong in military area. But we also cannot do much about it as Chinese GDP at PPP is already 30% higher than US, and PPP GDP is the indicator of resources available for military development.

(Actually Chinese always tried to conceal the real size of their GDP in PPP terms using various tricks, so also 2014 survey called International Comparison Program by World Bank Group  is biased to the downside.)

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

16 hours ago, Marcin said:

Chinese military is technologically very backward in comparison to US military.

 

 

 

For contemporary US-China hegemony conflict the most important are naval assets.

 

Navy is the major military force used to control predominant transport routes of the modern world: sea lanes.  Sea lanes ensure both: access to important natural resources (like hydrocarbons) and safety of global trade - the backbone of modern economic development.

 

It is also important that US (like earlier British Empire) is mainly naval empire, contrary to Russia and China which are both land based empires. The reason is US is located in sparsely populated and isolated continent of America, and Russia and China are located at the center of the world in supercontinent Eurasia. US location is good for safety of its population but bad for maintaining hegemony.

 

 

 

Where technologically are different types of Chinese Navy ships:

 

 

 

Chinese aircraft carriers: US technology was there in 1948 (after Midway class carriers, before Forrestal class carriers): 71 years ago,

 

Chinese destroyers: US technology was there in 1985 (early Ticonderoga class cruisers/Arleigh Burke class destroyers, after Mk 41 VLS system was installed): 34 years ago,

 

Chinese frigates: US technology was there in 1985 (the same as with destroyers): 34 years ago,

 

Chinese nuclear attack submarines: US technology was there in 1967 (early Sturgeon/637 class vessels): 52 years ago,

 

Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines: US technology was there in 1961 (around Ethan Allen class/Lafayette class): 58 years ago.

 

 

 

Chinese Naval strategy makes use of its main advantages:

 

- low manufacturing costs,

 

- large industrial base in shipbuilding industry and generally the ability to scale up fast any manufacturing task,

 

- relatively modern missile technology.

 

 

 

Chinese strategy also makes use of US Navy main disadvantages:

 

-         long time of procurement processes of new vessels (up to 10 years),

 

-         very high inertia and slow changes of strategy in comparison to changing global dynamics in Navy warfare (15+ years).

 

 

 

The solution is achieving numerical superiority in areas where Chinese Navy is technologically near peer competitor with US Navy, with relatively small budget. With this solution Chinese Navy becomes in fast pace the near peer competitor of US Navy while buying additional time needed to close significant technological gaps.

 

 

 

In surface combatants:

 

Chinese Navy is close to US Navy in capabilities of destroyers and frigates.

Recent developments in missile technology negated usefulness of smaller number of larger vessels vs larger number of smaller vessels

and also uselfulness of aircraft carriers vs near peer competitors.

 

Chinese Navy also extensively utilizes smaller but capable vessels: corvettes for littoral missions in EEZ.

 

Chinese Navy build up, ships launched in 2019 versus maximum number of ships of the same contemporary classes launched in any year by US Navy:

 

17 Chinese 56A type corvettes launched in 2019  – 4 US Littoral Combat Ships (both classes together) launched in 2018,

 

11 Chinese multirole destroyers launched in 2019 (8 of 052D type and 3 of 055 type) – 5 Arleigh Burke multirole destroyers launched in 1994.

 

 

 

With the current pace of building new vessels China aims to achieve numerical parity and later superiority vs US Navy in Pacific about 2022-2023 and if needed numerical superiority against all fleets present in East Asia around 2025-2026.

 

Chinese ships are on average 2-3 times cheaper than their US equivalents.

 

Yawn....now Marcin is a naval expert...

[Marcin + 519]

Jan, I do not understand why you think Donlad Trump could be saviour of US foreign policy and MAGA in global context. Trump wants MAGA for US citizens, his policies are intended to self-isolate United States, and are really effective.

I agree with you that EU countries and other countries should take more responsibilty about their defense. And if you would analyze what Asia and especially East Asia, SE Asia and South Asia is doing you would see that they are conducting large programs to modernize and extend their militaries, especially their navies and air forces. Look at South Korea, Japan, India but also Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand. Each and every country in Asia knows that it is THEIR TIME in global history in good and also bad meaning of this phrase. They are preparing to be more independent from US umbrella as US is gradually leaving Asia for Asians (read China), and at the same time hedge the fast rise of Chinese superpower.

Europe is not the center of the world any longer, so their defense situation is not that bad.

Center of the global interest in all spheres can be presented as 2 circles, 1000 miles of radius each. The centre of the first circle is Teheran and the center of the second is Taipei.

[Marcin + 519]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Yawn....now Marcin is a naval expert...

Yawn, Douglas again has nothing substantial to say.

[Rob Plant + 2,755]

17 hours ago, Marcin said:

Chinese military is technologically very backward in comparison to US military.

For contemporary US-China hegemony conflict the most important are naval assets.

Navy is the major military force used to control predominant transport routes of the modern world: sea lanes.  Sea lanes ensure both: access to important natural resources (like hydrocarbons) and safety of global trade - the backbone of modern economic development.

It is also important that US (like earlier British Empire) is mainly naval empire, contrary to Russia and China which are both land based empires. The reason is US is located in sparsely populated and isolated continent of America, and Russia and China are located at the center of the world in supercontinent Eurasia. US location is good for safety of its population but bad for maintaining hegemony.

Marcin I think you have summed this up well

The respective Navies are key, land based warfare is almost a thing of history now. Nuclear subs rule the waves and with respect to the aircraft carriers you mention the Chinese literally would be sitting ducks to any hunter killer subs America or the UK have. They would be obliterated in less than a week. The only way that China is going to threaten in any way the US military dominance is to develop these to be on a par with NATO subs. This is not going to happen IMO for decades

Again you are right that technology is key and I think this is also a major reason why POTUS is so keen on protecting tech companies from being raped and copied by the Chinese. Its not just an economic issue but a matter of national security and to help maintain hegemony for as long as possible.

I do agree with Jan that this is not about numbers as these subs can sink dozens of vessels in a matter of minutes and NOT be detected. An Astute class hunter killer sub has a signature the same size as a baby dolphin at full speed (30 knots). When first trialed against the US navy in manoeuvres it destroyed (in theory) all 12 of the opposition subs and then proceeded to destroy all of the top side vessels and was never detected by any of them. Against a fleet from China it would be child's play! I had this info from a senior guy at Rolls Royce who we work with to build these for BAE systems and MOD.

Just my thoughts, feel free to disagree as Tom would say.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Keep in mind, on both sides of the issue, that we in the public only know about the weapon system that the various defense departments want us to know about.

[Rob Plant + 2,755]

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind, on both sides of the issue, that we in the public only know about the weapon system that the various defense departments want us to know about.

very good point Douglas, I think we can confidently say that China is some way behind NATO and in fairness Russia in the development of its fleet from a technological standpoint.

[Marcin + 519]

Yes, EU submarines are really good, German AIP conventional being allegedly even more quiet and practically undetectable and very cheap, fraction of the cost of nuclear.

[Rob Plant + 2,755]

7 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Yes, EU submarines are really good, German AIP conventional being allegedly even more quiet and practically undetectable and very cheap, fraction of the cost of nuclear.

I believe they currently aren't quieter but more or less on a par with the nuclear ones, the hydraulics are the noisiest part on a nuclear sub.

However the nukes can stay underwater far longer and in general are circa 50% faster than AIP's

The donwside to nukes is cost, and what is never factored in to the cost is the cost of decommissioning them when they are mothballed!

Anyway yes the EU has a strong fleet that allied with the US fleet would be far stronger than the Chinese fleet.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Marcin said:

Jan, opinion  that Destroyers 052D and 055 and frigates 54A are near peer competitors to US destroyers and cruisers is stated by US think tanks in various reports, also for US Congress and US DOD (like this famous yearly report).

"Think tanks" are set up to promote an agenda.  The agenda in this case is to convince the US Congress to vote much more money for many more navy ships, specifically the destroyers built at Bath Shipyards in Maine, and that because the Senate seat in Maine is historically an Independent seat, and needs to be cultivated.  In the US system, all kinds of expensive hardware is being built just to curry votes and favor from the local representatives and senators.  For example, the old Chrysler tank plant in Ohio, currently owned by General Dynamics, continues to crank out hundreds of new Abrams tanks which then go directly to a parking field to sit.  the army does not want these extra tanks, and is going over to wheeled light armor anyway  (built, ironically, in the EMD locomotive plant in London, Ontario (Canada), but is forced to accept more tracked Abrams tanks by the Congress.  Why?  Because Ohio is a swing state in federal elections and nobody wants to have unemployed tank builders that vote in Ohio!   So, the tanks get built.  Remind you of a neighbor of yours? 

There are now two big finishing yards that build attack subs in the USA: one in Connecticut and another in Virginia.  Only one yard is needed, but the fed congress wants votes from both States.  The Connecticut yard does not build the actual hull; that is done in yet another yard in Rhode Island, then the semi-finished shell is towed over to the Connecticut yard and put inside a huge building with a drydock inside so that it can be finished and Russian aircraft cannot fly overhead and photograph it, a vestige of the cold war.  Does the navy need all these subs?  Of course not.  They get funded and built anyway, compliments of politics. 

Think tanks are the worst source of reliable information.  They are funded by people with agendas, and the agenda is always more military hardware.  So, whatever silly excuse that can be made up, will be made up.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Marcin said:

Jan, I do not understand why you think Donlad Trump could be saviour of US foreign policy and MAGA in global context. Trump wants MAGA for US citizens, his policies are intended to self-isolate United States, and are really effective.

  It has nothing to do with "being a savior."   It is all about the idea that the USA is not going to continue to pay to be world policeman.  You do not grasp the essence of US foreign policy.  It is:  "We think in terms of US interests, if you guys want something else, hey, fine by us, but pay for it." 

the foreign policy has nothing to do with MAGA  (other than the tariff aspect).  US foreign policy is turning away from being your planetary 9-1-1 provider, that's all.  So, in the future, if the Hutus and the Tutsis decide to go slaughter each other, the US is not sending troops, they will leave that to the Foreign Legion and the British/Canadians.  And if those folks are not prepared to send troops, then hey, it is what it is, and the US just shrugs.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree with that or disagree with that, it is the new US policy, so that is that. 

You seem to have this idea that US "competition" with China in military hardware will have the spill-over effect of protecting Poland from a military take-over by Russia, by their Wagner Brigade.  That is not US policy.  The US got into NATO specifically as the world policeman, with the understanding that NATO members would also support US policy vis-a-vis Russia.  The other members, European, do not agree, other than the UK.  So, the US now says, "OK, you fellows don't like our ideas, you want to get into bed with the Russians, so now you can pay for NATO or we will eventually leave NATO."   And if the US leaves NATO then so will Canada, I predict. And possibly Britain. 

The Russians, your blood brothers, continue to be land-grabbers, as the people of South Ossettia, and Abkhazia will attest.  Then there was Ukraine and the Donbass.  And don't forget your neighboring exclave, Kaliningrad Oblast, that the Russians scarfed up and continue to sit on.  Is Poland next?  Or Latvia?  Estonia?  Probably all of them.  You have this idea that Putin is a really nice person, because you and he are ethnic Russians.  Nothing I say is going to change your mind-set.  But when your street is filled with the men of the Wagner Brigade, remember that Poland's attitudes towards the USA will determine if the US Army is coming.  Or it sits in Fort Benning, everybody taking a nap or playing ping-pong.  Poland has this long history of being invaded and occupied by the Russians, one reason there are now ethnic Russians such as yourself living there.  That is not going to save the day for you when it happens again, and it will, in your lifetime.  You might want to consider that. 

[Otis11 + 551]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Marcin I think you have summed this up well

The respective Navies are key, land based warfare is almost a thing of history now. Nuclear subs rule the waves and with respect to the aircraft carriers you mention the Chinese literally would be sitting ducks to any hunter killer subs America or the UK have. They would be obliterated in less than a week. The only way that China is going to threaten in any way the US military dominance is to develop these to be on a par with NATO subs. This is not going to happen IMO for decades

Again you are right that technology is key and I think this is also a major reason why POTUS is so keen on protecting tech companies from being raped and copied by the Chinese. Its not just an economic issue but a matter of national security and to help maintain hegemony for as long as possible.

I do agree with Jan that this is not about numbers as these subs can sink dozens of vessels in a matter of minutes and NOT be detected. An Astute class hunter killer sub has a signature the same size as a baby dolphin at full speed (30 knots). When first trialed against the US navy in manoeuvres it destroyed (in theory) all 12 of the opposition subs and then proceeded to destroy all of the top side vessels and was never detected by any of them. Against a fleet from China it would be child's play! I had this info from a senior guy at Rolls Royce who we work with to build these for BAE systems and MOD.

Just my thoughts, feel free to disagree as Tom would say.

Just something to consider - the US tracks every foreign naval vessel (including submarines) in real time. There is a screen where you can select 'China' and zoom in on, say, the Pacific ocean (the entire Pacific) and it will show you every Chinese Naval Vessel in that region. You can further select 'Sub' and all but the subs will disappear, or Destroyer, or any other selection. You can click on an individual vessel on that screen and it will pull up detailed information about it. You can also do this for Russia, India, etc. Whatever you want. We have the equipment to identify and track even that Astute class hunter killer sub when sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor, much less everyone else's technology.

Let me be clear - Yes, the US Military knows the exact coordinates in real time of every Sub world wide. 

And, as part of that, there is also a plan to strategically neutralize these faster than they can 'become an active threat against American interests'. (Aka, some targets have to be neutralized within minutes, others have hours, and some even have a day or two...)

Just something for your thoughts.

(Btw, you can believe me or not. Your call.)

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind, on both sides of the issue, that we in the public only know about the weapon system that the various defense departments want us to know about.

Ding!

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 1/9/2020 at 6:33 PM, Jan van Eck said:

The Russians, your blood brothers, continue to be land-grabbers, as the people of South Ossettia, and Abkhazia will attest.  Then there was Ukraine and the Donbass.  And don't forget your neighboring exclave, Kaliningrad Oblast, that the Russians scarfed up and continue to sit on.  Is Poland next?  Or Latvia?  Estonia?  Probably all of them.  You have this idea that Putin is a really nice person, because you and he are ethnic Russians.  Nothing I say is going to change your mind-set.  But when your street is filled with the men of the Wagner Brigade, remember that Poland's attitudes towards the USA will determine if the US Army is coming.  Or it sits in Fort Benning, everybody taking a nap or playing ping-pong.  Poland has this long history of being invaded and occupied by the Russians, one reason there are now ethnic Russians such as yourself living there.  That is not going to save the day for you when it happens again, and it will, in your lifetime.  You might want to consider that. 

Jan, here Marcin but logged in as Marcin2, my account has troubles.

 I am ethnic Polish, although this is strange that you tag people on the basis of nationality, btw you are Dutch ?

I did not downvote you, although it was tough

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

I did not downvote you, although it was tough

Do not even think about it.  The Wrath of Khan comes down on the head of those that do.   Cheers.

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 1/9/2020 at 7:52 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Do not even think about it.  The Wrath of Khan comes down on the head of those that do.   Cheers.

Cheers!

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Rob Plant + 2,755]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Just something to consider - the US tracks every foreign naval vessel (including submarines) in real time. There is a screen where you can select 'China' and zoom in on, say, the Pacific ocean (the entire Pacific) and it will show you every Chinese Naval Vessel in that region. You can further select 'Sub' and all but the subs will disappear, or Destroyer, or any other selection. You can click on an individual vessel on that screen and it will pull up detailed information about it. You can also do this for Russia, India, etc. Whatever you want. We have the equipment to identify and track even that Astute class hunter killer sub when sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor, much less everyone else's technology.

Let me be clear - Yes, the US Military knows the exact coordinates in real time of every Sub world wide. 

And, as part of that, there is also a plan to strategically neutralize these faster than they can 'become an active threat against American interests'. (Aka, some targets have to be neutralized within minutes, others have hours, and some even have a day or two...)

Just something for your thoughts.

(Btw, you can believe me or not. Your call.)

Ding!

Hey I believe you 100% but I’m 99.9% sure we’ll be on the same side if any of them are ever needed so its cool!

i would point out back to you Douglas’s comment about tech.

tech changes (or is stolen) every 5 mins so never good to assume what you have stated above remains current!!

great post though👍

[Otis11 + 551]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Hey I believe you 100% but I’m 99.9% sure we’ll be on the same side if any of them are ever needed so its cool!

i would point out back to you Douglas’s comment about tech.

tech changes (or is stolen) every 5 mins so never good to assume what you have stated above remains current!!

great post though👍

Sorry, that 'you can believe me or not' comment wasn't directed at you... I could just see people wanting evidence that I can't provide. Because quite clearly anyone who has evidence wouldn't be able to provide said evidence.

And yes - if I'm discussing it on a public forum, you can be sure it's old news.

Heck, if I'm aware of it, it may very well be completely outdated. My point with that post was China's naval buildup is to no consequence in an actual hot war between the US and China - those will be neutralized faster than people would believe. The US Naval arsenal could take out every naval vessel in the world (friend and foe) even if they all turned against us.

Now - to be clear - that's not to say a war would be easy. China has significant 'tools' in their arsenal as well that would make that a grueling 'War' that I hope to never experience... they're just not the conventional weapons most people think of (hence why I said 'tools' and 'War'). If things were limited to a traditional war scenario, no one can beat the US military. Unfortunately for the US - we're past the point where things would stop at a 'traditional war'. 

(A bit off topic here, but given the other threads - semi interesting if people aren't aware: Iran's most significant 'weapon' isn't a traditional weapon either. It's not their IRGC that's a threat, nor their nuclear capabilities, nor their oil. The US could roll over these with more ease than most realize. But they're not fools. As much as I disagree and dislike their government, they're not as incapable as commonly believed)

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Jan, here Marcin but logged in as Marcin2, my account has troubles.

You can private message me or another moderator if you need some help with your account.