Jump to content

BamaATL

Full Members
  • Posts

    4541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BamaATL

  1. 15 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

    Nice. Well the Africa shit can hammer Wagner in the CAR and Mali. 

    Its a nice thought.  If we fully declared Wagner a terrorist group I think they'd globally be fair game.  While we've declared them a criminal organization, it'd be nice if we went the full mile and designated them as a flag-less terrorist organization.  Then we could legally shit hammer them anywhere on the globe (including Ukraine, so long as no russian or civilians were anywhere near there).  But just seeing them get shit hammered everywhere else on the planet would be a good start.  

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  2. Xi is an opportunist as much as he has autocratic desires, he isn't at all like putin.  putin is a thug, with some strange thought that the lack of loyalty to the former soviet rule is somehow an act of disloyalty to him personally.  While you can disagree with the methodology (which I do) that Xi uses to meet his ends, it's hard to argue with his results, even with the massive economic challenges China faces.  He's made economic moves with the idea in mind to put China on a stronger economic footing and rival to the U.S.  Silk road proposals, foreign port deals, infrastructure on an international basis (albeit with leg breaking terms for those that take it), etc.  He wants to have a larger military footprint, but mainly because he wants what we have, large scale international influence.  Currently, he's limited to regional influence, although a large one.  

    He does want Taiwan, but that's more of an ideological thought of sovereign control (real or perceived).  Basically how can I assert influence internationally when at least some people are going to be of the opinion that I don't control the whole of my country?  I do believe he was thinking of trying to take Taiwan militarily, but then saw how it was going for russia in Ukraine and reconsidered.  He knows now he's far better off waiting for the coming russian civil war and will attempt to gain territory in mineral wealthy Siberia.  He may not have to fire a shot, by the way.  

    The other downside in military action against Taiwan was of course conflict with the US.  If he chose to do that, he would lose his biggest economic partner.  He doesn't want that.  

    Like it or not, China and US are partners in a sense.  Maybe the better way to look at it is rivals, but not in the sense that there is any real desire on either side for military action between the two.  Proxy conflicts, maybe.  There are better ways to strengthen his and China's hands, and he is no fool.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. 10 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

     

    We're talking about China here.  And that's very different from a war with Russia.

    China does not have first-strike capability.  And its nuclear force is relatively small.  Currently, China has fewer than 300 warheads.  That's enough for a retaliatory strike; it's definitely not enough for a preemptive counterforce strike.

    And that's China's nuclear doctrine.  China maintains a no-first-strike policy.  It focuses its efforts on maintaining a survivable nuclear force (though how survivable it actually would be against a full American counterforce first strike is pretty debatable).  So its nuclear doctrine is not based on "mutually assured destruction."  It's based on "assured retaliation."

    A war with China, therefore, is not particularly likely to go nuclear.  And the only way it would go nuclear is if we were pretty damned sure that we could take out their warheads with a counterforce strike.  Because there's no real likelihood of China actually starting a nuclear exchange.

    I was referring to a global situation, not a war with China.  Actually, I would find a nuclear strike between China and USA, isolated only to the two of us as beyond remote.  In truth, I believe russia to be far more likely to strike China than we ever would be.  To be honest, I doubt we would ever see a scenario for a full strike on a global scale.  In that scenario, everyone would have to be attacking everyone, in many cases for little to no reason.  Now could one man launch and cause global level destruction; yes, but the retaliatory responses would be limited to eliminating that threat, not in just saying fuck it, lets get them all.  As it bears to the US and China relations, should China be attacked in this manner, ironically enough, we would likely become allies.  War can make for strange bedfellows.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
  4. 54 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    You're talking about WWIII

    Look at the escalating casualty numbers.  WWI the world lost around 40 million.  In WWII the world lost around 90 million.  Let's extrapolate that out to nuclear armed countries all around the world.  

    In full strike scenario, probably 1 billion almost immediately (and it may well be merciful if you are in that first batch).  Over the next 3 to 5 fives, combination of radiation poisoning (not as high as you might think) and general starvation, probably somewhere between an additional 5 to 6 billion.  Good news, a good bit of people would likely survive, about 1 billion.  

    • Rage+1 1
  5. I keep thinking about the scene in the film Glory, when the troops face their first rebel battle.  After the first skirmish, which they win the forest is full of smoke and eerily quiet, and Morgan Freeman yells, "here they come!", and of course the rebs make an assault that breaks down to hand to hand combat.  Every time I read about the russian reserves its what I think about.  A methed up horde of idiots just charging in an attempt to overrun emplacements.  

  6. 1 hour ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

    Just triple the number of H1Bs for India. Use China's allocation for that. 

    Well I was thinking about that and an analogy would be something like this.  For you guys either Oklahoma or A&M are mortal enemies, and lets say you were in a simmering conflict with them with actual shots fired.  Meanwhile, I've been selling them some of our good stuff (not anywhere near our best), and I turn around and I've been offering you lesser equipment.  I think you might tell me to go fuck myself, and be justified in doing so.   So there's that.  

  7. 2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    How good is our relationship with India right now?  Seems they're always a bit cagey.

    Not greatish?  In no particular order we have the following issues off the top of my head:

    1.  Modi - Islamaphobic current strongman he isn't quite committing genocide against the muslim minority population of India, but he isn't very nice.  Modi is also a big cult of personality guy who has outwardly argued and made policies against democracy and (you guessed it) in favor of autocracy.  

    2.  Our relationship with Pakistan has never sat well with India, for a lot of reasons.  

    3.  Western history in general with India's past (not our fault, but we get lumped in with that).

    4.  China, and yes the skirmish from time to time, but China also courts India in their favor as a junior partner (or promises of sorts) and does court influence.  

    5.  India has been purchasing military equipment from Russia (mainly because its cheaper, but also as a fuck you to us for the whole Pakistan thing).  

     

    Just a few I can think of.

    • Like 1
  8. 1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

    We may very well have a better picture of what’s going on than Putin, and I’m not kidding - he may have a chain of people doing their best Frank Dreben impressions and telling him that everything is okay and they have the logistics chain and supplies to handle them, and get them to the front.  Nobody wants to admit they’re moving troops in Scooby Doo vans and transporting artillery shells in civilian cars,

    Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to keep on my toes.  

    • Like 1
    • Haha 4
  9. I've always liked the general design idea with hijinx but its never really panned out.  I wonder if because all the motors are housed in the top bar, they are too small and just generally under powered.  Caveat - I know generally nothing about this stuff beyond basic mechanics and physics.

    If I were designing one of these I'd try to use proximity mines, and seeing as though I have all my fingers, I haven't been working on it. 

  10. 30 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    Do you think we would stay out of the fray or would we want territory across from the Aleutian Islands (north of Japan)? I think we would prefer some sort of Japanese claim and for us to stay out of it. We would want some bases there, though.

     

     

    image.thumb.png.d93f0346cb9b0f6f8a18c2c2edc5be26.png

    Long story short, I have no idea how we will react to all this.  I can say that if we wanted to restart colonialism, we would have done it starting 70ish years ago, and we wouldn't have stopped at a few Pacific Islands where we were more or less welcome (although, while a giant asshole, Patton was right, we should have just kept on marching to Moscow, and yes I realize war weary people wouldn't have gone for this).  So I'd be surprised if we had any true territorial aspirations.  It seems like its better policy for us to make allies that agree to have bases for us, rather than colonial conquerors.  With all that in mind, having amphibious beach head bases make little sense for us (as we have no invasion plans for anywhere); so no.  

    Quite frankly, my bigger concern is with the precedent.  If Xi takes Siberia, on the one hand oh well fuck russia, right?  In the short term, sure fuck russia.  In the long term (and perhaps even immediately), what does this tell another strongman?  In the immediate chaos during this event does Modi try to retake Bangladesh, Kashmir, etc (just spit balling, I no idea if those are even stated goals of his, I don't think they are).  All we do know, is that when we fail to act in one area of the world, it inevitably leads to unintended consequence.  

    I agree with Kasparov, we are already in WW3.  However, I personally look at russia as being the modern day equivalent of Italy.  Mussolini may have been the model for the fascists at the beginning, but in the end he was just a broken down stooge.  putin strikes me as this, and the real danger is Xi.  I think Ukraine is a precursor for a wider conflict.  

    • Hook 'Em 4
  11. 8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    This got me thinking about after the war. If Russia falls, we will have a whole other problem. As Kasparov stated, western Russia should be fine - St. Petersburg, Moscow will be fine. Other parts of the country will splinter. So, China will try to gain territory in the Southeast and Japan will take islands. Are we going to just allow China to take oil rich lands? What can we do to stop it? Will China start causing issues for Japan? It seems like if this is WWIII, then we may be moving closer to WWIV with the fall of Russia. Everyone keeps worrying about nuclear weapons on the black market with the fall of Russia. I think there are other concerns as well.

    When Russia fails, not if.  The funny thing about projection is that as we all know it typically speaks to your own insecurities.  When putin says that Ukraine isn't a country, he's projecting; the truth is its the Russian Federation that isn't a country.  It has 22 republics within it, with other internal divisions that are even further complicated.  Moscow has always operated from a bully pulpit to keep these areas more or less in line (while allowing some small measures of autonomy).  Without the ability to bully, this all falls apart and quickly.  What happens when China takes much of Siberia, probably nothing.  Long term this would set a bad precedent, but I'm not sure what if anything we could do, save sanctions.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  12. 21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    We were woefully prepared for WWII, no question and USA, Inc. answered the call.  I wonder, though, about current timeframes versus then.

    And, to be perfectly blunt, I'm not sure our corporate environment has the right kind of attitude these days.  War is a powerful motivator, though.

    So what you are saying, is that despite having more than double the population, infinitely better technology, access to more resources, a more educated work force, quite literally dozens fold more facilities than at that time, the USA would struggle to meet this sort of challenge because of our corporate attitude.  

    Well I guess that's a thought.  

    • Like 1
  13. There is a PETA joke to be made with the fur coats, but I just couldn't get there.  Anyway, I can't imagine the indignity of having a loved one killed in action for who the fuck knows why (their perspective) and to be given a fucking jacket for loss as compensation.   A car is a general insult, but this is something else.  I can't imagine that this is good PR even for these asshats.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  14. 12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    Someone smarter than me, kindly explain who the fuck Gazprom is going to recruit for their new private army? Or more specifically, what pool are they going to draw from? Wagner has had private mercenaries for awhile, and now convicts. The Russian Army soldiers aren't going anywhere any time soon, they've all been their equivalent of Stop-Loss'd in the army, and that's if they weren't all in Ukraine already without a ride home. Hundreds of thousands of conscripts, with allegedly hundreds of thousands more are on the way to join the Russian Army. The prisons are empty. Where the fuck are these new soldiers coming from, exactly? At best it would be rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. What am I missing?

    putin can hide the costs associated with this from public (russian) view.  He can divert revenue without really very many people actually knowing the full cost.  Considering the budgetary shortfall he is experiencing in the public view, this is a way to pay mercenaries regardless of the cost.  Also, he gives less than a shit if he bankrupts a semi private company.  That's at least why he would do this.  As to who would sign up, well, there are plenty of poor people around the world, and the prospect of whatever financial offer he is making will be tempting to at least some of them.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 58 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    People have been saying that for almost a year.  Putin seems like a bit of a pussy. 

    Legit military targets in the Moscow area I'm totally cool with.  But not civilians.  Other than the fact it might be a war crime, it's a waste of my tax dollars.

    Don't kid yourself, putin isn't a pussy so much as he is pragmatic.  So long as he isn't feeling threatened, nukes are off the table.  As soon as he does feel threatened, look the fuck out.  He could give two shits if regular russians die, he's repeatedly proven that.  About the only thing he would do about civilian deaths is use it to rally to his delusional cause via propaganda.  I'm not advocating attacking their civilians because it likely wouldn't have any sort of positive effect (if they lose an apartment building it isn't as if there will be some sort of organic uprising to oust him).  

    In all honesty, I've sort of resided myself to the thought that he will launch at some point (certainly at Ukraine, but don't rule out Poland, Lativa, Lithuania, or Estonia).  If he reaches this stage and actually launches at NATO, it will be out of spite, knowing he's a dead man anyway.  Our best hope is that if he does give the order one in his inner circle will then finally pop him.  

  16. 25 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    Happens during volcanic eruptions too. It’s not that strange when you consider that material underground might have a very different electrical charge than material on the surface. 

    I've been told by my congressman that these are jewish space lasers.  I feel lead astray.  

    In all seriousness, that's fascinating, I was unaware of this phenomena.  Shame it comes with this level of destruction and human loss, but nonetheless very interesting.  

  17. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


    Why pay for what you can just take?

    Especially if you think you can take it with only firing a few cruise missiles into rail bridges.  I suspect russians caught behind that line would surrender without much of a fight.  Would it be a gamble that putin wouldn't fire nukes, sure.  If it's done under the guise that China is simply retaking their territorial demands, doesn't that sound familiar?  

  18. 4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    Yeah, I actually think it’s in China’s best interest to let the west diminish Russia’s military power in Ukraine. 

    Strong man 101, shit's bad in your country, grab a quick military victory.  (Make no mistake, shit's pretty bad in China on numerous levels - Covid, real estate bubble (the big problem), aging population, no women, the list goes on.).  I fully believe Xi was going to invade Taiwan until putin said hold my beer.  Then he got to see how shitty the designs of the equipment China primarily copied for their military performed in the field and he was wise enough to nix that.  But he still needs a win, and Siberia makes a lot of sense.

    1.  We know that the russian military is degraded at a significant level.  We also know that they have been moving arctic equipment into the field of combat, at least some of it from Siberia.  

    2.  We know the russian military is hopelessly tied to logistics via rail.  There are several extremely large bridges on the trans Siberian railroad that could easily be cut, isolating Siberia logistically from Russia proper.  (Maybe Russia can tow their aircraft carrier into position!  Hell maybe the russian navy is good in the Aral Sea).

    3.  putin has managed to kill many of the men in ethnic areas of the federation (lots of women now without mates)

    4.  Mineral resources would of course be great

    5.  Perhaps most importantly, is anyone in the world going to be in a hurry to condemn China for screwing putin?  I doubt it, and while long term this will represent a problem, for now, he'd be likely to get away with it.  

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  19. 12 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    So the UKA holds the best it can, bleeds Russia as much as it can, then gets Panzers, Bradley's, long range rockets, etc. and goes on the offensive in June? Or what?

    Been wondering about the lack of a counteroffensive by the Ukrainians for a bit now, but I am beginning to believe that it was all a feint, with the idea being of getting Russia to commit the maximum amount of forces into battle.  Basically, (and this is entirely a theory of my own), the addition of the longer distance himars gives the Ukrainians the opportunity to cut several bridgeheads/rail supply lines into the occupied areas and essentially trap and starve out the remaining force of approximately 350k russians and equipment in occupied Ukrainian territory.  After a few months, the more advanced weaponry will be in the field, sort of a hounds to the hunters idea, and ultimately an absolute slaughter of the Russian forces.  

    I hope my theory is correct, as it would lead to a generational degradation of Russian combat power.  I've read that they've lost somewhere around 30 to 40%, if this were to come to pass, it would likely be more like 70% in my eyes, in essence non recoverable.  Of course the down side is that we are financing this degradation with Ukrainian blood, and those poor folks stuck behind the lines will pay in awful ways.  

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...