china, China, CHINA

[mbasic]

I think what Westerners need to recognize, Russia and China don't give a fuck. They lose 10,000,000 in a conflict...so the fuck what? They don't care. China could lose a 100,000,000 and probably improve China. THEY DON'T CARE.

I think the Russians lost only 10,000 in Afghanistan.... meanwhile, that bankrupted the country. Sure, they didn't "lose" that war, because lack of bodies to throw at it....but it kinda telling what a country can afford peoplewise, moneywise, and military wise ...

....but this idea of sending 100's of thousands to die in a meat grinder of war has not been played out in modern times with 1st world countries. I don't think the Chinese people , or govt, has it in them. Nor do we certainly.

I think your quasi-3rd world Arab countries can still do it....and maybe spots in Africa and Indochina...cuz they're poor as fuck. I don't see G20 countries marching droves of anybody off to die in any way that can't quickly win. ..... upsetting their own applecart isn't worth it. Banana Republics' carts are .....empty.

[dw]

I have had conversations with Russians and Chinese citizens here in the United States. Where one would assume their opinions would be moderated. Their view of the world is very skewed. It is amusing for me to hear their outlandish takes and disdain for the United States then ask them why they moved here (freedom and opportunity...duh). Listening to their very disjointed, inept response is the height of cognitive dissonance.

I think your experience is seeing the difference between ideology and philosophy of governance vs. pragmatism. A lot of immigrants in the US, including from Russia and China, are not here because they are strong believers in US values, or even in the US system of government. They are here for pragmatic reasons such as safety (if they come from a crime-ridden place), rule of law (if they come from a massively corrupt place), and above all financial opportunities for themselves and their kids. So, it is less cognitive dissonance, and more a matter of them liking their old country just fine, and sometimes even preferring it to America ideologically, but enjoying the fact that they live safely and with more wealth here in the States and thus making the pragmatic decision to come/stay here.

The poor reasoning can sometimes be not understanding why the US is better than their home country even in purely pragmatic affairs, and somehow thinking that governance and ideology are not direct drivers of things like economic success.

Even the detractors of the US, or at least the more serious ones, understand that what we are calling economic opportunity was a specific aim of our constitution. Thus Marxists on the left concede the superior productivity of capitalism and traditionalists on the right (not a group we really have in the US) used to decry the vulgar commercialism etc. of Americans.

[Hardartery]

I cannot name the country that I am in, because they look for mentions on the web, there's a whole office building of people dedicated to it, but it is an ally of the countries that you are discussing.

I don't believe your experiences in a country not China or Russia is particularly applicable.

I have had conversations with Russians and Chinese citizens here in the United States. Where one would assume their opinions would be moderated. Their view of the world is very skewed. It is amusing for me to hear their outlandish takes and disdain for the United States then ask them why they moved here (freedom and opportunity...duh). Listening to their very disjointed, inept response is the height of cognitive dissonance.

But seriously. Chinese citizens discussing Taiwan...YIKES.

Their opinions are outlandish, try to convince a Chinese national that smoking is dangerous. Go ahead, I double dog dare you. That aside, the thinking and propaganda are the same in these countries, just different names. The young people are not convinced or on board, but they go with the flow when things are good. Old people are convinced and indoctrinated. Admittedly, due to the propaganda and "Education" systems employed in these places they have a very skewed viewpoint and world view, but they know how corrupt things are and that they don't have the connections to get anywhere. They also have been subjected to plenty of Western propaganda about how wonderful the West is. When life starts to suck at home the other side of the fence suddenly has really green grass. If they cannot mollify civil unrest it just gets ugly and runs downhill. The strategy of economic problems is very effective at disrupting life in other countries, even if the people blame foreigners as the cause they are much more difficult to rule when thay are unhappy. Once they hit the point of feeling like they have nothing to lose revolution becomes a serious threat.

[aurelius]

I think the Russians lost only 10,000 in Afghanistan.... meanwhile, that bankrupted the country. Sure, they didn't "lose" that war, because lack of bodies to throw at it....but it kinda telling what a country can afford peoplewise, moneywise, and military wise ...

....but this idea of sending 100's of thousands to die in a meat grinder of war has not been played out in modern times with 1st world countries. I don't think the Chinese people , or govt, has it in them. Nor do we certainly.

I think your quasi-3rd world Arab countries can still do it....and maybe spots in Africa and Indochina...cuz they're poor as fuck. I don't see G20 countries marching droves of anybody off to die in any way that can't quickly win. ..... upsetting their own applecart isn't worth it. Banana Republics' carts are .....empty.

the Pentagon estimates Russia has had between 70,000-80,000 casualties to date.

[JonA]

Detonating a tactical nuclear warhead miles ahead of a carrier group will create a tsunami that will wipe it out.

This isn't a realistic threat. Tsumanis are a shoreline phenomenon. Out where carrier groups operate, you'd hardly even notice an actual tsumani wave. It would only be a few feet tall.

And, if for some reason you parked your carrier in a harbor susceptible to tsumanis, they'd still have to detonate a large portion of the world's nuclear arsenal to even start one big enough to bother you.

[aurelius]

Detonating a tactical nuclear warhead miles ahead of a carrier group will create a tsunami that will wipe it out.

This isn't a realistic threat. Tsumanis are a shoreline phenomenon. Out where carrier groups operate, you'd hardly even notice an actual tsumani wave. It would only be a few feet tall.

And, if for some reason you parked your carrier in a harbor susceptible to tsumanis, they'd still have to detonate a large portion of the world's nuclear arsenal to even start one big enough to bother you.

The Russians just deployed the Belgorod. Whose main armament is a nuclear powered nuclear armed torpedoes. Designed to destroy coastal cities as part of Russia’s nuclear deterrence and enemy naval fleets at sea. They call it Poseidon. It is a 2 megaton warhead, travels at 70 knots (faster than any US submarine or torpedo), with a range in the 1000’s of miles. They make the warhead especially dirty so that the areas hit will be saturated with radiation.

Every source I have read from popular mechanics to military outlets seems to think these are very serious threats that neutralize the US’s missile defense advantage. I don’t believe your are well informed on the matter.

[JonA]

Detonating a tactical nuclear warhead miles ahead of a carrier group will create a tsunami that will wipe it out.

This isn't a realistic threat. Tsumanis are a shoreline phenomenon. Out where carrier groups operate, you'd hardly even notice an actual tsumani wave. It would only be a few feet tall.

And, if for some reason you parked your carrier in a harbor susceptible to tsumanis, they'd still have to detonate a large portion of the world's nuclear arsenal to even start one big enough to bother you.

The Russians just deployed the Belgorod. Whose main armament is a nuclear powered nuclear armed torpedoes. Designed to destroy coastal cities as part of Russia’s nuclear deterrence and enemy naval fleets at sea. They call it Poseidon. It is a 2 megaton warhead, travels at 70 knots (faster than any US submarine or torpedo), with a range in the 1000’s of miles. They make the warhead especially dirty so that the areas hit will be saturated with radiation.

Every source I have read from popular mechanics to military outlets seems to think these are very serious threats that neutralize the US’s missile defense advantage. I don’t believe your are well informed on the matter.

Oh, lol. I see. So when you said they could wipe out carrier groups with tsumani waves, what you really meant was that they could threaten coastal cities with radiation?

[aurelius]

Detonating a tactical nuclear warhead miles ahead of a carrier group will create a tsunami that will wipe it out.

This isn't a realistic threat. Tsumanis are a shoreline phenomenon. Out where carrier groups operate, you'd hardly even notice an actual tsumani wave. It would only be a few feet tall.

And, if for some reason you parked your carrier in a harbor susceptible to tsumanis, they'd still have to detonate a large portion of the world's nuclear arsenal to even start one big enough to bother you.

The Russians just deployed the Belgorod. Whose main armament is a nuclear powered nuclear armed torpedoes. Designed to destroy coastal cities as part of Russia’s nuclear deterrence and enemy naval fleets at sea. They call it Poseidon. It is a 2 megaton warhead, travels at 70 knots (faster than any US submarine or torpedo), with a range in the 1000’s of miles. They make the warhead especially dirty so that the areas hit will be saturated with radiation.

Every source I have read from popular mechanics to military outlets seems to think these are very serious threats that neutralize the US’s missile defense advantage. I don’t believe your are well informed on the matter.

Oh, lol. I see. So when you said they could wipe out carrier groups with tsumani waves, what you really meant was that they could threaten coastal cities with radiation?

These weapons can create tsunamis that will destroy coastal cities and make rebuilding impossible (the Russians call the dirty radio isotopes ‘salting’). These weapons can create tidal waves (is that less triggering that tsunami?) that can wipe out naval fleets in the open sea. Admittedly a lesser concern because finding a carrier group in the open sea is very, very hard.

I don’t know what to tell you other than you are simply wrong. I suggest you read more on the matter as you seem to have an interest, it is very cool tech, and it is also very scary our enemies have deployed weapon systems that utilize this tech.

[mbasic]

Their opinions are outlandish, try to convince a Chinese national that smoking is dangerous. Go ahead, I double dog dare you.

I laugh-choked on my coffee reading^

this example is perfect

[JonA]

I don’t know what to tell you other than you are simply wrong. I suggest you read more on the matter as you seem to have an interest, it is very cool tech, and it is also very scary our enemies have deployed weapon systems that utilize this tech.

So these nuclear Poseidon torpedoes...You say they've already been deployed?

[mikeylikey]

Win an underdog has a surprising upset in sports, you often hear it summarized with the response "That's why you play the game."

Looking at two opponents on paper can only tell you so much. Ultimately the only way to know who is actually the more capable is to play the game, or fight the war.

Lex Fridman had on a guy talking about just this about a month or two ago. His point was that war is usually the result of a miscalculation by one side or both. It's not the both sides necessarily think they will "win" - whatever that means. To choose war over negotiations basically implies that you believe you have the ability to get, militarily, conditions preferable to what you can achieve through negotiations even after accounting for the cost and destruction of the war. War only happens when both sides believe this, and obviously they cannot both be right.

The point being that if we had perfect information and could look at two powers on paper and predict who would win using careful analysis, which each side would of course do when disputes arose, there would be no wars because without the uncertainty, the side with the obviously inferior prospects would always fold.

[JonA]

Win an underdog has a surprising upset in sports, you often hear it summarized with the response "That's why you play the game."

Looking at two opponents on paper can only tell you so much. Ultimately the only way to know who is actually the more capable is to play the game, or fight the war.

Lex Fridman had on a guy talking about just this about a month or two ago. His point was that war is usually the result of a miscalculation by one side or both. It's not the both sides necessarily think they will "win" - whatever that means. To choose war over negotiations basically implies that you believe you have the ability to get, militarily, conditions preferable to what you can achieve through negotiations even after accounting for the cost and destruction of the war. War only happens when both sides believe this, and obviously they cannot both be right.

The point being that if we had perfect information and could look at two powers on paper and predict who would win using careful analysis, which each side would of course do when disputes arose, there would be no wars because without the uncertainty, the side with the obviously inferior prospects would always fold.

This is largely how I feel when I start a game of Risk. It never shakes out that way, though. I always end up occupying countries next to some jerk who constantly spam attacks, even when I have a clear numerical superiority, dragging us both down out of sheer spite.

[mgil]

There’s been some stuff said here that’s clearly wrong.

That’s about all I can say.

[dw]

Win an underdog has a surprising upset in sports, you often hear it summarized with the response "That's why you play the game."

Looking at two opponents on paper can only tell you so much. Ultimately the only way to know who is actually the more capable is to play the game, or fight the war.

Lex Fridman had on a guy talking about just this about a month or two ago. His point was that war is usually the result of a miscalculation by one side or both. It's not the both sides necessarily think they will "win" - whatever that means. To choose war over negotiations basically implies that you believe you have the ability to get, militarily, conditions preferable to what you can achieve through negotiations even after accounting for the cost and destruction of the war. War only happens when both sides believe this, and obviously they cannot both be right.

The point being that if we had perfect information and could look at two powers on paper and predict who would win using careful analysis, which each side would of course do when disputes arose, there would be no wars because without the uncertainty, the side with the obviously inferior prospects would always fold.

I'm not entirely sure about this analysis. It seems to depend on a certain interpretation of probabilities. If I flip a coin is it 50/50 that it will come up heads, or is it in fact either 100/0 or 0/100?

If a large country invades a smaller country with an 80/20 estimate of success, and the smaller country with the same estimate decides it's worth the cost for a chance to avoid humiliation and subservience, will the eventual outcome prove that one side was mistaken?

I would make the lesser claim, rather old hat these days, that things like morale and will and experience seem to go very far in war, despite the fact that they are easily overlooked by war planners.

[omaniphil]

There’s been some stuff said here that’s clearly wrong.

That’s about all I can say.

and said with such confidence. Color me skeptical.

[aurelius]

So these nuclear Poseidon torpedoes...You say they've already been deployed?

Some reports say yes. Some reports say no. Fog of war and all that. I am assuming the Russians have something that is operational. Likely capabilities are exaggerated. It is their primary counter to the West’s missile defense systems.

The Belgorod submarine has been ‘delivered’ to Moscow and deployed. The Belgorod is the submarine specifically developed as the platform for the Poseidon torpedoes.

The history of the Belgorod is interesting. It has had a long development cycle with changing mission parameters.

[mikeylikey]

I'm not entirely sure about this analysis. It seems to depend on a certain interpretation of probabilities. If I flip a coin is it 50/50 that it will come up heads, or is it in fact either 100/0 or 0/100?

I mean, technically you and the coin are part of a quantum system in a superposition of heads/tails until it lands and becomes entangled with you and the surrounding environment in one state or the other (while the opposite result occurs in an alternative universe, maybe).

If a large country invades a smaller country with an 80/20 estimate of success, and the smaller country with the same estimate decides it's worth the cost for a chance to avoid humiliation and subservience, will the eventual outcome prove that one side was mistaken?

I would make the lesser claim, rather old hat these days, that things like morale and will and experience seem to go very far in war, despite the fact that they are easily overlooked by war planners.

I agree with the latter. The way I guess I would express it was that the larger country failed to account for the morale and will of the smaller country. What appeared to be 80/20 in favor was in reality 0/100 all along, with the failure being attributable to incomplete information.

I suspect those intangible factors are so important in fact that it is pointless to evaluate armies in a vacuum, without knowing the circumstances of the war and the resulting impacts on the will and morale of the parties. Before WWII the US had a relatively unimpressive military, but obviously that wasn't the case by the end. The war begat the military might, not the other way around, and that was due entirely to morale, public buy-in, etc.


So when you talk about a hypothetical Sino-American war, the first question should not be who has the best, or the most, Missles/Carriers/Planes. The question should be what is the war being fought over and what will the psychological impact on each country, and resulting commitment, mobilization. etc, be? Which is why I keep asking the question "where, when, what, why" and am not super interested in nuclear torpedoes or F15s vs Mig3X's


A war resulting from China's invasion of Tibet would go way different than a war resulting from China's invasion of Hawaii.

[aurelius]

I mean, technically you and the coin are part of a quantum system in a superposition of heads/tails until it lands and becomes entangled with you and the surrounding environment in one state or the other (while the opposite result occurs in an alternative universe, maybe).

Does this analysis account for quantum tunneling?

[aurelius]

Anyone looking for an interesting read: a tabletop exercise of what would happen if China invaded Taiwan (with full US support) was recently completed. It assumes the conflict would remain regional.

Long story short, China would not be successful but everyone would lose.

[mikeylikey]

I mean, technically you and the coin are part of a quantum system in a superposition of heads/tails until it lands and becomes entangled with you and the surrounding environment in one state or the other (while the opposite result occurs in an alternative universe, maybe).

Does this analysis account for quantum tunneling?

How do you think Grandpa got that quarter into your ear?