China builds world's fastest wind tunnel to test weapons that could strike US in mins

[ifrah]

If the Chinese manage to get a paper glider fly a bottle rocket for 30ft the CCP will boast that it's the first ever 100% Cheena made hypersonic aircraft carrying an intercontinental warhead or whatever you please to use as reference. If a developed country does anything even remotely that, probably the bragging dial won't be set all the way to 11.

[Tennis]

Maybe we should stop filling our tech schools with foreign students. And the threat of us retaliating and destroying China makes whatever tech they get rather obsolete. If and when America falls it will be from within, not from militarizes invading

Between China and the U.S. who is more likely to invade?

[artemishunter1]

Between China and the U.S. who is more likely to invade?

honestly China. America is weakened and decay phrase, China is in rising phrase. Usually rising empires start invading, usually their local nations like say Tibet.

[satimy]

Between China and the U.S. who is more likely to invade?

Neither in my opinion

- - - Updated - - -

honestly China. America is weakened and decay phrase, China is in rising phrase. Usually rising empires start invading, usually their local nations like say Tibet.

How are they going to invade?

[arandomuser]

Please liberate us china

[Skroe]

honestly China. America is weakened and decay phrase, China is in rising phrase. Usually rising empires start invading, usually their local nations like say Tibet.

America is not weakened or in decay lol. *literally* the exact same crap is said as during the Bush era. Not a damn thing different. A superpower for over 70 years and some people still have no fucking clue how to handle it.


America _is_ in a modest relative decline against China, largely due to things China is doing and the US is selectively not doing (but could). But, and this is the strange part, the relative power of BOTH is increasing rapidly compared to the rest of the world that isn't America or China.

The EU is convulsing.
Russia is literally dying.
The Middle East is on the brink of another regional war.


Honestly the only thing that comes out of these threads is that some people skipped too many history classes in high school, or read too much manga and too few real books. I say this because in 240 years of American foreign policy, the single most disastrous decade for it was the 1950s, which saw the US from hegemonic on Earth outside of the USSR, to basically expelled from Eurasia except from the fringes. In 1946 the US was by far the most powerful country on Earth. In 1961, it was easily the second. The USSR had far since surpassed it. America spent most of the Cold War arguably losing.

All this is true, and yet in 30 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, America went from being the world's second most powerful country to its only superpower.

And why is that? Because history operates on much longer timescales than one year or five years or ten years. It took about 50 years for historic perspective of the EARLY Cold War (until 1961) to come into focus for Christs sake.


Let me illustrate what I mean.



That is a US Navy exercise involving three aircraft carrier battlegroups in the Western Pacific. Each Aircraft carrier is 100,000 tons and nuclear powered. They carry 70 aircraft each (with room for more). Around them is their escorts: 9000 ton Arleigh Burke class destroyers, 11,000 ton Ticondergia class Cruisers. Below them is likely 4+ Attack Submarine escorts. Also pictures is a Japanese Amphibious Assault Ship (by another name). And lastly you can just make out two supersonic B-1B Lancer heavy bombers. The United States of America, which is in, you know, north America, has all these a day's sail away from Beijing.

What's my point? If China were to deploy something like this in an analogous way to say, the Atlantic Ocean, a days' sail off the coast of Washington DC, it would be historic. It would be be a terrifying display of Chinese advancement. They now would have three Carrier Strike Group. operating on the other side of the world! Front page news! We'd never here the end of it about "CHina's rise".

It's a bunch of crap of course.

China has 1 finished carrier and one in process of being built. They are small and kinda suck, based on a dated Soviet design. They have nothing approaching a US-level Carrier Strike Group. China has nothing even on the drawing board comparable to what is pictured there.

But when the US does it? How big a deal is the story? A minor note. Not front page news. Everybody takes for granted that we can do things like this.

Countries in absolute decline, which is what you're referring to, are not capable of things like is pictured there, and with a larger defense budget and new military R&D in progress, that's just the start of it.

It's really a nonsense situation. The US has the biggest and best stick in the world. And it's arguably never been as effective. But because as a status quo power it chooses not to swing it around wildly to hit every horsefly that bites it, people forget what it's capable of. You forget. You always forget.

Would you people like a reminder? Because just as I wrote in the other thread, the snide shit talking is quickly replaced by words like "proportionality" and "restraint". But here's the thing... I can say that because we've been here before Three times in the last 20 years. And you always forget.

Maybe the US should just wipe out North Korea just as a reminder why there is one superpower on Earth. Just one. And if you don't have US passport, you're not part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Between China and the U.S. who is more likely to invade?

What is this? Starcraft?

Neither the US nor China is going to invade anybody.

But unlike the US, China's defense industrial base is incredibly vulnerable to attack. The US could break China's ability to make war far easier than the reverse.

Read this and weep.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html

It's very detailed, so I encourage you to read the whole thing, rather than skim. The executive summary does not remotely do it justice. You'll be hard pressed to find another analysis which considers things like Missile Inventories.

Here's the findings though:

Findings
Unless both U.S. and Chinese political leaders decline to authorize
their militaries to carry out their counterforce strategies, the ability of
either state to control the ensuing conflict would be greatly impaired.
Both would suffer large military losses from the outset and throughout
a severe conflict: In 2015, U.S. losses could be a relatively small fraction
of forces committed, but still significant; Chinese losses could be
much heavier than U.S. losses and a substantial fraction of forces committed.
This gap in losses will shrink as Chinese A2AD improves: By
2025, U.S. losses could range from significant to heavy; Chinese losses,
while still very heavy, could be somewhat less than in 2015, owing to
increased degradation of U.S. strike capabilities. A severe and lengthy
conflict would leave both with substantially reduced total military
capacity and thus vulnerable to other threats.

China’s A2AD will make it increasingly difficult for the United
States to gain military-operational dominance and victory, even in a
long war. However, provided the United States is nonetheless willing to
fight, China cannot expect to win militarily. Thus, the two could face
the prospect of an extremely costly military standoff.
This outcome implies that a conflict could be decided by domestic
political, international, and, especially, economic factors, all of which
would favor the United States in a long, severe war:

• Although a war would harm both economies, damage to China’s
would be far worse (perhaps 25–35* percent of GDP after
one year). Because much of the Western Pacific would become a
war zone, China’s trade with the region and the rest of the world
would decline substantially. China’s loss of seaborne energy supplies
would be especially damaging. Although consumption is a
smaller share of the Chinese economy than the U.S. economy, it
is expected to grow, leaving the Chinese economy vulnerable to
further contraction in the event of war.

• Politically, a long conflict, especially if militarily severe and economically
punishing, could expose China to internal division—
taxing and testing the state.

• The entry of Japan and, to a lesser extent, other U.S. partners in
the region could have a considerable influence on military operations.
The responses of Russia, India, and NATO are less important.
However, NATO efforts to preserve security in other regions
(at least Europe, if not also the Middle East) would permit greater,
or less risky, commitment of U.S. forces to war with China. Such
a combination of international responses could increase Chinese
losses in a long, severe conflict, despite improved A2AD.

In a nutshell, despite military trends that favor it, China could not
win, and might lose, a severe war with the United States in 2025, especially
if prolonged. Moreover, the economic costs and political dangers
of such a war could imperil China’s stability, end its development, and
undermine the legitimacy of the state.

Yet in the event of war, the military capabilities, motivations, and
plans of both sides make a severe, prolonged, and exceedingly costly
conflict a distinct possibility. Of the many reasons the United States
should not want such a war, the most important are the immense military
losses and economic costs to itself and the implications, for the
country, the region, and the world, of devastating harm to China.
Such prospects underscore the importance of both the United States
and China contemplating how to control and restrict fighting should a
crisis turn violent, which shines the spotlight on principles and procedures
for political control and communication.

[truckboattruck]

is that creedy? yes
have the chinese invented anything of import in the past 3000 years? no

theyre a high IQ people but completely stagnant

[Zeta333]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/chin...4-minutes.html



https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/chin...4-minutes.html

Wow hopefully nobody starts a war with China because this could turn ugly. Interesting how they spend so much less on the military yet are so advanced.

You must not know much about the lack of quality in chinese arms. Thier planes are bad copies, thier guns are horrible copies, thier tanks are bad copies. When they were showing off thier newest stealth fighter it had to light its afterburner just to stay in the air.

[rosebull]

is that creedy? yes
have the chinese invented anything of import in the past 3000 years? no

theyre a high IQ people but completely stagnant

I like chinese americans, they're good people and usually fun to get a beer with.

[Kellhound]

Apart from when it was challenged in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere where people with almost no military hardware fought off successful insurgencies while the US wasted trillions of dollars blowing up tents with missiles. Oh and the Russians who are currently quite successfully not only challenging but completely ignoring it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting it is rude to inject truth into a discussion when you guys are jacking off to your latest toys.

Except in all of those cases, the US military defeated the state actors, often in quick and spectacular fashion. The US politicians, not the US military, fails at dealing with insurgencies. As for Russia, they are a wet paper tiger.

- - - Updated - - -

Between China and the U.S. who is more likely to invade?

If you are talking about invading mainland US or mainland China, the answer is quite simple, neither are capable of doing so and are unlikely to be able to do so in our lifetime. If you are talking about invading peripherals, then China is more likely to do so as an opening move, the US more capable to do so as a counter move.

- - - Updated - - -

The Americans, the UK and Russia had a treaty with Ukraine that the country would be defended from attack following nuclear disarmament.

Russia invaded, the UK and US did nothing. The UK at least has the excuse that it can't win a conventional land war with Russia. The US has no excuse: flagrant cowardice and breach of promise.

A bunch of Russians are not worth fighting over, really. Its as simple as that. Try taking back the Baltics and Russia's military will be reduced to scrap and a bunch of nuclear missiles.

[Skroe]

Except in all of those cases, the US military defeated the state actors, often in quick and spectacular fashion. The US politicians, not the US military, fails at dealing with insurgencies. As for Russia, they are a wet paper tiger.

This reminds me, again, of how pre-Iraq War, the line about the US Military (and US in general) is how it always cuts and runs. Vietnam Syndrome. That whole business. A variant of the slams. In this thread.

The US has been in Afghanistan since 2001. It's still fighting in Iraq. Years from now the day will come when the US is out of both. It could be 30 years total for both. A 30 year commitment to two countries on the literal other side of the planet.

And what's going to happen within a few years of the final withdrawal? The return of the "Cut and Run" slam.

So many comments in this thread speak of people's lack of education, or carelessness, rather than the way things are. It's always the same.

[Deleted]

is that creedy? yes
have the chinese invented anything of import in the past 3000 years? no

theyre a high IQ people but completely stagnant

Gunpowder and compass.

[Easo]

Wow hopefully nobody starts a war with China because this could turn ugly. Interesting how they spend so much less on the military yet are so advanced.

First, they spend a lot and probably are spending more than they let publicly be known. And don't forget about how economics and prices work...
They are advanced, but less that they would like to appear. There is a lot of shiny facade, but most of that is brought by lumps of cash. The actual experience, or how their entire army actually would function in a war outside party slogans is very much under question.
Not to mention USA would still absolutely dominate on the seas and in nuclear arsenal.

[cubby]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/chin...4-minutes.html



https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/chin...4-minutes.html

I'm having a little trouble with the math here. 12 kps is 4350 kph, and China is 7k km away, for not so much in 14 minutes. Obviously, if ship launched, then time to target would differ.

Wow hopefully nobody starts a war with China because this could turn ugly. Interesting how they spend so much less on the military yet are so advanced.

I like that you think China publishes their real military budget.

[Kontinuum]

is that creedy? yes
have the chinese invented anything of import in the past 3000 years? no

theyre a high IQ people but completely stagnant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ese_inventions

[truckboattruck]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ese_inventions

and then they went stale of last weeks bread never to rise again.
only to copy what others have done.