Meanwhile in China

[BabaYaga 15288]

10 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Whenever people question the economic might of the USA, I remember two important things, both that happened 80 plus years ago but nonetheless are always worth remembering.  

1.  Prior to WWII, we didn't have an air force to speak, truth be told not much at all beyond civil and mail planes.  Once it became apparent to the Roosevelt administration that it was going to be inevitable we were going to be in it, manufacturing started.   That isn't impressive, nor is it insane.  What's insane, is that in essence, the plan was that we would build so many bombers that we would blot the sky.  It quite literally wouldn't matter how many the Germans or the Japanese shot down, we would just keep on coming.  Now what is crazy, is that in any other country in the world, even today, that would literally be laughed out the room as idea.  But the real crazy part is that is was done.

2.  At the same time, while we did have a Navy, by the end of the war, we built so much that the rest of the world's Navy combined wasn't as large.  

 

Both of those things, at the same time, out of a depression. 

The Arsenal of Democracy...

We also benefitted from geographical isolation from the rest of the war.  Out factories and production facilities were safe from attack and sabotage.  This is what facilitated our massive growth post WWII.  Virtually every other major manufacturing option in the world was rubble.  We were the worlds grocery and hardware store.  

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4975]

12 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Maybe in the long term.  In the short term they are precariously close to being able to take the island and then figure they're too big to fail and will deal w/ the repercussions down the road.  The world depends on Chinese manufacturing and supply chains way more than Russia; it was realatively easy to remove Russia from the global economy but it will do as major damage to the US if we shut down all trade with China also.  Go through your house and see how much shit is made in China.  It's everywhere and changing those supply chains to India or reshoring them to the US is a decade-long thing, not a flip the switch.  In the meantime, voters are going to punish the party in power when they see a 40%+ price increase on daily goods to account for that re-shoring, as well as shortages.

Also don't count on the EU for shit.  They'll buckle.

Agree, again, long term.  China has a window for about 7-10 years now before they hit the rough patch there, and they have some homeport military advantages, AND the US population isn't bought into the need for the war.  That could be enough to nudge Xi into action.

Twelve months ago the consensus was that it would take five years to wean Europe off of Russian natty gas. I'm not saying we can flip a switch, but when the incentives are right things can move along much quicker than we think. 

[SquishMitten 10403]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It would be brutal.  Take a long, hard look at your phone.  It might be the last one you have for a decade +

You think the isolation from Covid was bad, can you imagine what it would do to millions to have all their social media/communications/browsing taken away from them.

You’re saying losing all social media would be a bad thing? 

[BabaYaga 15288]

Just now, SquishMitten said:

You’re saying losing all social media would be a bad thing? 

lol, no - but it would break millions of people.  Straight up break them.  During physical isolation they have digital connections.  It would be beneficial in the long run, but the "weaning" period would be....interesting....

[BabaYaga 15288]

Kids, I'd like to introduce you to a very old friend of mine....

[TwiceHorn 31438]

10 hours ago, BamaATL said:

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.  

Well, we had plenty of isolationists preceding WWII, including Henry Ford and FoMoCo.  But an actual world war presents economic constraints (austerity, disappearing markets for consumer goods) that insure that you either get on board with war production or go extinct.

I'm not sure how a China-Taiwan conflict would "politic out:" as another regional conflict. or a "proxy war," or a real national threat.  And I'm not sure the same kind of economic constraints would apply against corporate America.

And US corporations are currently so single-mindedly focused on short term profit and growth, to the virtual exclusion of other considerations, that I'm not sure, given options, they would choose to be "patriotic."  (As noted, I'm not altogether sure it was patriotism exactly that got corporate America on board in 1941 either, it may just as much have been survival).

It's not a matter of capability.  It's a matter of will, especially political will.

 

[BabaYaga 15288]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, we had plenty of isolationists preceding WWII, including Henry Ford and FoMoCo.  But an actual world war presents economic constraints (austerity, disappearing markets for consumer goods) that insure that you either get on board with war production or go extinct.

I'm not sure how a China-Taiwan conflict would "politic out:" as another regional conflict. or a "proxy war," or a real national threat.  And I'm not sure the same kind of economic constraints would apply against corporate America.

And US corporations are currently so single-mindedly focused on short term profit and growth, to the virtual exclusion of other considerations, that I'm not sure, given options, they would choose to be "patriotic."  (As noted, I'm not altogether sure it was patriotism exactly that got corporate America on board in 1941 either, it may just as much have been survival).

It's not a matter of capability.  It's a matter of will, especially political will.

 

A world war and the very real threat of an invaded and subjugated Europe tends to galvanize priorities.  It was the attack on Pearl Harbor that was the catalyst.  Even in Europe, many here were content with land-lease options to support a war "over there".

It wasn't until there was a direct attack on the US that opinions changed virtually overnight.  

[TwiceHorn 31438]

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A world war and the very real threat of an invaded and subjugated Europe tends to galvanize priorities.  It was the attack on Pearl Harbor that was the catalyst.  Even in Europe, many here were content with land-lease options to support a war "over there".

It wasn't until there was a direct attack on the US that opinions changed virtually overnight.  

Certainly true among the public. I'm not really sure how much that extended to giant corporations, though.  For one thing, I think they tended to be a bit more community minded back then than they are now (see that GE Annual Report from the 50s that someone, maybe me, posted).  For another, they most certainly weren't as dependent on equity markets as they are today.  Finally, because wartime economics virtually destroyed many of their markets overnight, war production was a means of survival for a lot of them.

And even in WWII, corporate America's record of patriotism is not entirely unblemished.  https://www.phactual.com/8-american-companies-that-worked-with-the-nazis-during-world-war-ii/

It kind of depends on how such a conflict is characterized successfully: as some of the current rhetoric surrounding Ukraine?  Another Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan?  Or WWIII?

Edited February 8, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[BabaYaga 15288]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Finally, because wartime economics virtually destroyed many of their markets overnight, war production was a means of survival for a lot of them.

This would be the catalyst today - protection of material and markets

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Twelve months ago the consensus was that it would take five years to wean Europe off of Russian natty gas. I'm not saying we can flip a switch, but when the incentives are right things can move along much quicker than we think. 

I'll admit I've been pleasantly surprised with the EU, especially Germany over the past year.  However, let's also be realistic - we've been lucky.  First, they've had a mild winter which reduced their gas consumption.  Second, because LNG is a commodity we've been able to backfill Russian supplies to some extent and that ability is growing as the EU builds new LNG import facilities for US gas.  Third, the Ukraine war is in the EU's backyard.  None of those conditions exist for a faraway war between China and Taiwan/US.  I think it's much more likely that Germany and the EU spearheads a strongly worded letter to China saying "No, really, stop!" and maybe some weak sanctions that they later back off on when they feel the pinch.  Especially if they're already feeling a pinch from rising energy costs due to the Russian sanctions.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Horn of Gabriel

[SquishMitten 10403]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly true among the public. I'm not really sure how much that extended to giant corporations, though.  For one thing, I think they tended to be a bit more community minded back then than they are now (see that GE Annual Report from the 50s that someone, maybe me, posted).  For another, they most certainly weren't as dependent on equity markets as they are today.  Finally, because wartime economics virtually destroyed many of their markets overnight, war production was a means of survival for a lot of them.

And even in WWII, corporate America's record of patriotism is not entirely unblemished.  https://www.phactual.com/8-american-companies-that-worked-with-the-nazis-during-world-war-ii/

It kind of depends on how such a conflict is characterized successfully: as some of the current rhetoric surrounding Ukraine?  Another Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan?  Or WWIII?

Wouldn't the Defense Production Act come into play? I'm not overtly familiar with it's full potential, but my limited understanding is that it allows the government to essentially force companies to accept contracts it deems necessary for national security. I'm sure there are limitations on what they can force, but in general, isn't that the case?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

[Parliament 14243]

His loss was my gain.  She shags like a mynx.

[Nicole44 22058]

 

[bolverk 29655]

Hey @Nicole44 who's that in your first tweet? 

[mchookem 16322]

that's Madonna

[Nicole44 22058]

13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Hey @Nicole44 who's that in your first tweet? 

That’s not my Twitter but damn Madonna needs to lay off the filler or whatever. I get she’s 64 but she looks like a Chinese Spy Balloon. Anyway, The satire spy balloon Twitter popped up when I searched the balloon. Thought I’d share it. I have a Twitter but that’s not it. Lol. I think I have 9 followers so I’m like super popular lmao.

[bolverk 29655]

2 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

That’s not my Twitter but damn Madonna needs to lay off the filler or whatever. I get she’s 64 but she looks like a Chinese Spy Balloon. Anyway, The satire spy balloon Twitter popped up when I searched the balloon. Thought I’d share it. I have a Twitter but that’s not it. Lol. I think I have 9 followers so I’m like super popular lmao.

Well, yeah, I knew it wasn't you who tweeted it, but HOLY SHIT, THAT'S MADONNA!!!

[YGIFS 19449]

What if it wasn't a balloon?  What if it was a pinata sent by China?  And it was filled with microchips, and candy, little airplane liquor bottles, bags of cocaine, fireworks, etc?  And we fucking ruined the surprise shooting it down?  

[Nicole44 22058]

I just love the replies…

 

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Well, yeah, I knew it wasn't you who tweeted it, but HOLY SHIT, THAT'S MADONNA!!!

Too much filler and Botox I am guessing. She got roasted on Twitter for her appearance at the Grammies (that same picture) and claimed people are attacking her because they are ageist.

[Gatorubet 30185]

13 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

It would be brutal.  Take a long, hard look at your phone.  It might be the last one you have for a decade +

You think the isolation from Covid was bad, can you imagine what it would do to millions to have all their social media/communications/browsing taken away from them.

Population decline fix?

[bolverk 29655]

17 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Too much filler and Botox I am guessing. She got roasted on Twitter for her appearance at the Grammies (that same picture) and claimed people are attacking her because they are ageist.

I don't pay attention to the Grammys, so it's news to me. And I'm not going to attack her, but she's totally unrecognizable since the last time I'd seen a photo of her...maybe 20 years ago. Sure, we all change some in appearance when we get older, but we don't naturally morph into completely different beings. It honestly saddens me she felt compelled to do that to herself.

[Nicole44 22058]

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Seeing that picture of Madonna was like watching the final season of Game of Thrones.  Lots of memories have just been irrevocably tainted.  

Kinda nightmarish at this point. But I digress…back to the topic at hand: since we now know that the balloon wasn’t benign in the sense that it was just a hapless hopeless weather study that got victimized by the US jet stream…why did they want to sabotage the meeting with Blinken? I mean…if it was company owned (state owned) or civilian (still state controlled) it was sanctioned by China and we know now it’s from their government/military…so what was the fucking point of all this? Now every time we detect a balloon we and other countries will probably blow it up…

[BachelorTrek 2966]

45 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I just love the replies…

 

Too much filler and Botox I am guessing. She got roasted on Twitter for her appearance at the Grammies (that same picture) and claimed people are attacking her because they are ageist.

Whenever I see this space-alien look, from whatever reasons, I think of Shirley MacLaine, who got the space-alien look way before she got to 88.
 

 

[BabaYaga 15288]

9 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

Kinda nightmarish at this point. But I digress…back to the topic at hand: since we now know that the balloon wasn’t benign in the sense that it was just a hapless hopeless weather study that got victimized by the US jet stream…why did they want to sabotage the meeting with Blinken? I mean…if it was company owned (state owned) or civilian (still state controlled) it was sanctioned by China and we know now it’s from their government/military…so what was the fucking point of all this? Now every time we detect a balloon we and other countries will probably blow it up…

The only thing being threatened right now is her continued relevancy....

[BabaYaga 15288]

9 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Seeing that picture of Madonna was like watching the final season of Game of Thrones.  Lots of memories have just been irrevocably tainted.  

Still remember when she did Playboy

Good times

[RPM 26317]

They are going to lose their mind at the Superbowl.

[Armybrat 40822]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:35 AM, BabaYaga said:

Kids, I'd like to introduce you to a very old friend of mine....

Welcome to my house kiddies….

 

[Armybrat 40822]

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

14 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

Kinda nightmarish at this point. But I digress…back to the topic at hand: since we now know that the balloon wasn’t benign in the sense that it was just a hapless hopeless weather study that got victimized by the US jet stream…why did they want to sabotage the meeting with Blinken? I mean…if it was company owned (state owned) or civilian (still state controlled) it was sanctioned by China and we know now it’s from their government/military…so what was the fucking point of all this? Now every time we detect a balloon we and other countries will probably blow it up…

Couple of possibilities, in my ranked order of likelihood:

1. They thought this would be like their prior balloon overflights and not be regarded as a big deal, but the media picked up on it and it blew up in their face
2. The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing because China is so big and bureaucratic, and while they underestimated the shitstorm, they weren't intentionally trying to fuck up the summit it was just a side-effect
3. ...
4. ...
5. There's a shadowy cabal within the Chinese government that wants to sabotage any sort of bilateral relationship with the US and planned a balloon overflight of our airspace timed to Blinken's visit to disrupt it

[Stella Link 534]

5 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

The only thing being threatened right now is her continued relevancy....

The "Material Girl" has run out of material....

[Armybrat 40822]

18 minutes ago, Stella Link said:

The "Material Girl" has run out of material....

Any more face lifts, she’s gonna be sporting a goatee. 

[Samson's Wig 3191]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:24 AM, BabaYaga said:

It would be brutal.  Take a long, hard look at your phone.  It might be the last one you have for a decade +

You think the isolation from Covid was bad, can you imagine what it would do to millions to have all their social media/communications/browsing taken away from them.

I think that would be a good thing for the vast majority of people.

[Armybrat 40822]

The Karens would go bonkers.

[BabaYaga 15288]

11 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

The Karens would go bonkers.

[Trey3216 15345]

Karens Go Bonkers

 

Would be a solid cover band name or a Japanese style gameshow set in suburban U.S.ofA.  

[Ghost of LL 15531]

On 2/7/2023 at 12:16 PM, Parliament said:

In a war we'd sink every oil tanker going to China.  Theyd hafta SWIM to Taiwan.

 

On 2/7/2023 at 3:03 PM, Horn of Gabriel said:

You're correct, however China is rapidly closing this gap.  They've recently been actively training for beach landings and deployment using roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO) ships.  To your point, 100 miles is a lot and those waters will be contested.  But China knows that, and they're dealing with that too.  Specifically they've massively expanded their land based offensive ballistic and cruise missile capabilities for both anti-ship and land attack.  From the link:

Now you might say our anti-satellite, EW, jamming, and cyber capabilities make that issue moot and break the kill chain.  You willing to bet 10,000+ sailors' lives on that?  I don't think Biden or the Navy will be, and for that reason the SCS and Taiwan straight will be relegated to subs only and our carrier strike groups will be held at standoff range beyond the first island chain.  We'll need 3-4 of them minimum and all the associated logistics that go along with that.

At the same time, Guam and Okinawa will also be saturated by those missiles.  We don't have enough anti-cruise and anti-ballistic missile defense to make up for the sheer numbers that China can throw out today, let alone tomorrow.  If China gets serious, Guam and our other major Pacific bases will get cratered.  This is why our recent news with the Philippines to open new and reopen old bases there is critically important to spread our assets.  We can't keep all our planes hot seated, fueled and ready to take off on a moment's notice 24/7, so the AF is going to lose a shit ton on the ground.  A recent wargame found that ~90% of the AF's ~300 planes lost were destroyed on the ground.  We also tended to lose around 2 aircraft carriers and about a dozen ships in total.  That sounds unfathomable, unthinkable.  Our USAF and USN are too good right?  I'm sure the French had similar thoughts about the Maginot line.

OTOH, China has issues too.  First they lack experience in amphibious landings, and that's really hard.  We paid for our learnings up to Normandy in blood.  The PLAN, PLAF, PLARF, and PLA haven't demonstrated combined warfare (yet).  Their top-down culture is risk averse.

Pros for China:

• Homecourt advantage
• Nationalistic fervor
• Easier supply chains
• Asymmetric advantages in missiles, potentially cyber
• Quiet diesel subs good for cross-straight and near costal fights
• AA/AD in SCS
• Enough nukes to hold us to MAD

Cons for China:

• Technology disadvantage vs. US/allies
• Economic considerations of fighting one of their top 2 trading partners (this goes both ways)
• Lack of experience in amphibious landings
• Taiwan's geography works against them once they land (few viable beaches/ports to land at, lots of mountains and choke points make it defensible inland)
• Time - the longer it takes the worse for China once things go hot

Pros for US:

• Overall much stronger military, better training and more professional
• Technology advantage in stealth, standoff weapons, anti-missile defense (although #'s limited), anti-sub warfare, space, and others
• Blue water Navy

Cons for US:

• Military is currently spread around the world
• US population isn't bought into the need to defend Taiwan or spend our lives on another war in Asia
• Could go nuclear
• Long supply chains make sustainment really hard
• Relatively low supplies of anti-ship standoff range missiles like LRASM, which forces the USN to either put subs or carrier groups at risk
• Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan cannot realistically be resupplied once the conflict starts because we cannot guarantee air superiority due to mainland China's missile reach and proximity
• Limited basing options in AsiaPac make juicy targets for Chinese missiles + our antimissile defense is nowhere near enough to deal with their #'s

If you really want to geek on this stuff, read the output of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) unclassified wargame "The First Battle of the Next War - Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan" released in January 2023.  It's a sobering look at what we face.  The bottom line: in most scenarios Taiwan is able to sustain as an independent democracy.  The bad news: we lose a lot of lives and materials and our military is severely degraded for years to come (as is China's).

I don't think you (or anyone else on this thread) is appreciating just what is involved in going to war against the United States, particularly for a country like China that is a net importer of food and fuel.

In any real war against a global power (i.e., not a regional power like Iraq or North Korea or even Iran), the United States would not accept neutrality from any country.  A full blockade would be implemented, making it impossible for China to import enough food and fuel to sustain its population, much less its economy and military.  It's not like we'd have to sink a bunch of oil tankers, either (though we wouldn't hesitate to do so).  It's that Saudi Arabia would be told that if they don't abide by the economic blockade of our enemy, all of their assets in the United States will be seized and they won't do business with the United States or anyone who wants to do business with the United States.

And a naval blockade against China would be effective.  We don't need carriers to pull it off, because China's seaports cannot be approached without coming within range of American basis in South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.  And that's kind of important, because 90% of China's population lives east of the Heihe–Tengchong Line.  China's west is so vast and unpopulated as to make the importation of goods overland very difficult.

In contrast, China can't blockade the United States.  It doesn't have the navy to do so.  And it doesn't have any allies close to our shores that would be able to enforce a blockade.  And even if it did, the United States is a net exporter of food and fuel--we can feed ourselves.

The United States isn't really a superpower.  It's a megapower.  It's simply not susceptible to being defeated in a major conventional war.  And China really doesn't have the capability to undertake a nuclear war against the United States because it lacks full counterforce capabilities.

[chainsaw 9858]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

I don't think you (or anyone else on this thread) is appreciating just what is involved in going to war against the United States, particularly for a country like China that is a net importer of food and fuel.

In any real war against a global power (i.e., not a regional power like Iraq or North Korea or even Iran), the United States would not accept neutrality from any country.  A full blockade would be implemented, making it impossible for China to import enough food and fuel to sustain its population, much less its economy and military.  It's not like we'd have to sink a bunch of oil tankers, either (though we wouldn't hesitate to do so).  It's that Saudi Arabia would be told that if they don't abide by the economic blockade of our enemy, all of their assets in the United States will be seized and they won't do business with the United States or anyone who wants to do business with the United States.

And a naval blockade against China would be effective.  We don't need carriers to pull it off, because China's seaports cannot be approached without coming within range of American basis in South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.  And that's kind of important, because 90% of China's population lives east of the Heihe–Tengchong Line.  China's west is so vast and unpopulated as to make the importation of goods overland very difficult.

In contrast, China can't blockade the United States.  It doesn't have the navy to do so.  And it doesn't have any allies close to our shores that would be able to enforce a blockade.  And even if it did, the United States is a net exporter of food and fuel--we can feed ourselves.

The United States isn't really a superpower.  It's a megapower.  It's simply not susceptible to being defeated in a major conventional war.  And China really doesn't have the capability to undertake a nuclear war against the United States because it lacks full counterforce capabilities.

how did the US lose in vietnam

[ABSR 5308]

14 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

how did the US lose in vietnam

We did a partial war,  and did not try to conquer North Vietnam, but just keep them out of the South.

When we decide kick ass and conquer shit with 100% focus we are awesome.  Winning the peace is much harder unless you want to commit genocide and/or oppress people with totalitarian methods.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

how did the US lose in vietnam

I'm not talking about small wars against regional powers.  I'm talking about major wars against global powers (i.e., Russia and China).  Vietnam was the equivalent of putting a hundo on the Super Bowl; a war with China would be a bet-the-farm undertaking.

We haven't had a lot of those.  Realistically, we've only really had one of those: World War II.  And look at how that went.  

Just consider the diplomatic end.  Look at the dates on which Latin America declared war on the Axis Powers.  The United States didn't let Latin America sit around and be neutral (although Argentina and Chile were a scooch late joining the party).  We made it pretty goddamned clear to them that they needed to declare that they were with us (particularly countries in Central America from which Japanese planes could conceivably be based to attack the Canal).  If you think we wouldn't do the same thing in the event of a war with China, you're crazy.

So don't assume that a war with China is a war simply against the United States.  It's not.  It's a war China would be undertaking against the United States and Japan and South Korea and Taiwan and the Philippines and the whole of NATO and probably Latin America and probably the Gulf Arabs.  And for good measure Vietnam and India would probably jump in to get their pound of flesh from the Dragon, because they've got their own quibbles.

We didn't go through any of that effort with Vietnam.  Because fundamentally, we didn't need to.  Losing in Vietnam didn't threaten our national existence.  Losing to China would.

Paradoxically, winning in Vietnam could have threatened our national existence, if "winning" came at the expense of escalating the war into a confrontation with the Soviet Union.  And for that reason, we didn't do things that were probably necessary to win the war (including, but not limited to, bombing North Vietnamese bases from which Soviet advisors were operating).  

But in a war with China, there wouldn't be a similar consideration.  We'd be at war with a major power.  All the stops are coming out.

[chainsaw 9858]

We didn't lose we just ran out of time.

[Trey3216 15345]

23 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89628]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And for good measure Vietnam and India would probably jump in to get their pound of flesh from the Dragon, because they've got their own quibbles..

And both India and Vietnam will massively benefit geopolitically and more importantly, economically, from China going down.  Hell, India is already siphoning high-tech work away from China (iPhones for now) and Vietnam is in that mix.

There's a reason why it's such a big deal for India to be doing trials for their homegrown aircraft carrier and naval fighters (and they decided the current fighter is not going to cut it and are putting a better/more powerful one into production).

Hell, India could be making a run at a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of military contracts now that Russia has shown itself to be a shitshow and won't be able to recover it's manufacturing capacity (or replenish what they've lost) due to sanctions.

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And that's kind of important, because 90% of China's population lives east of the Heihe–Tengchong Line.  China's west is so vast and unpopulated as to make the importation of goods overland very difficult.

China's reliance on big fucking cruise ships with a radar signature that approximates putting a large warehouse on the water doesn't make sense for attacking Taiwan.  But it makes a lot of sense if they need to quickly move thousands/tens of thousands of troops up and down their coastline to deal with internal problems.

[Parliament 14243]

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

[BamaATL 16593]

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.

[JesusSweatDuck 17781]

9 hours ago, BamaATL said:

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.

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

[BamaATL 16593]

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.  

[JesusSweatDuck 17781]

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

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.  

Indians still very reliant on people sending money back home. In 2019, 19 billion was sent from the US to India. It's a leverage point I don't think the US uses enough 

[BabaYaga 15288]

15 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not talking about small wars against regional powers.  I'm talking about major wars against global powers (i.e., Russia and China).  Vietnam was the equivalent of putting a hundo on the Super Bowl; a war with China would be a bet-the-farm undertaking.

 

But in a war with China, there wouldn't be a similar consideration.  We'd be at war with a major power.  All the stops are coming out.

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.  

[Anastasis 23463]

Peak Madonna imo.