Meanwhile in China

[Chad Fuck 18166]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Peak Madonna imo. 
 

 

Agreed.  CSB time:

I arrived at Jester shortly after her book "Sex" (way subtle there Mads) had been released.  Probably hadn't been out a month yet.  I remember popping over to the PCL and seeing some guy turning it back in after doing his "research project" and it was utterly destroyed.  Like pages falling out of it destroyed.  My first thought was "Jesus, I didn't realize you could get spank bank material at the PCL."  My second thought was, "I'm not touching anything even remotely fappable in here or I'm basically touching the dick of every son of a bitch on campus via the transitive property."  Much hotter inspiration running around campus in those days.  

[BamaATL 16593]

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.  

[BabaYaga 15632]

11 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

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.  

[TwiceHorn 32109]

On 2/8/2023 at 11:50 AM, SquishMitten said:

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?

I'm sure it would and I'm not familiar with its ins and outs.  It has had a lot more selective use than I would have suspected over the years.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950

But in this political environment, if the conflict is not fully supported, I could definitely see some problems arising.

[YGIFS 19458]

1 hour ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

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 

Big banks and check cashing/wire places make tens of billions of remittances to places like Mexico, India, Phillipenes, Central America, East Africa.  Ever notice why massive corporate lobbies like theirs are always so fucking quiet when it comes to undocumented immigration?  The absolute explosion of fintech platforms now dedicated to these immigrants in the last few years has shocked everyone involved.  Somebody got wise and realized most of these people didn't come here to rape and murder, they came to work and save.  Eventually, you can not only do remittances, and bank them, but also offer car loans, mortgages, small business loans, insurance, etc.  

If we are serious about onboarding some modicum of manufacturing from China to North America...digitally banking this new and expanding workforce will change our financial system forever.  In a good way.  And another fuck you to China.  

[Ghost of LL 15705]

3 hours 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.  

 

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

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.  

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.

[BabaYaga 15632]

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.

Jesus man, how can we casually sit back and pontificate on starting conflicts with two of the worlds largest armies that have nuclear weapons. 

• First strike
• Counter strike
• Retaliatory strike

We are talking weapons-free nukes.  I don't place a lot of comfort in this with words like "not likely", "pretty sure", and "no real likelihood"

Further, they don't need "first strike" capabilities.  They can very easily nuke a carrier group from any number of ways - specifically their hypersonic delivery options that are more advanced than our own.  

[BamaATL 16593]

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.  

[Schulz2.0 29302]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus man, how can we casually sit back and pontificate on starting conflicts with two of the worlds largest armies that have nuclear weapons. 

• First strike
• Counter strike
• Retaliatory strike

We are talking weapons-free nukes.  I don't place a lot of comfort in this with words like "not likely", "pretty sure", and "no real likelihood"

Further, they don't need "first strike" capabilities.  They can very easily nuke a carrier group from any number of ways - specifically their hypersonic delivery options that are more advanced than our own.  

[Ghost of LL 15705]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus man, how can we casually sit back and pontificate on starting conflicts with two of the worlds largest armies that have nuclear weapons. 

• First strike
• Counter strike
• Retaliatory strike

We are talking weapons-free nukes.  I don't place a lot of comfort in this with words like "not likely", "pretty sure", and "no real likelihood"

Further, they don't need "first strike" capabilities.  They can very easily nuke a carrier group from any number of ways - specifically their hypersonic delivery options that are more advanced than our own.  

You would prefer that I formally pontificate?  I mean, that's a problem, because my tuxedo is at the cleaners.

Let me be unequivocal since you don't like hedge words--there is no chance that China would use nuclear weapons first.  It goes against their nuclear doctrine, and it would be suicidal to do so.  We have more than 20 warheads for every one of theirs.  So any nuclear attack by China would be met with massive retaliation that would destroy China.

They can hit a carrier group--I assume you're using the term "nuke" there metaphorically and not to mean the literal use of a nuclear weapon--but that's the nature of warfare.  And while they can hit one of our carrier groups, we can hit every last one of their military assets.  Their ability to hit all of our military assets is extremely limited (for example, they can't attack Whiteman AFB, from which attacks against China would be launched).

So chill the fuck out, man.  It's just a little conventional world war we're talking about here.

[BabaYaga 15632]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's just a little conventional world war we're talking about here.

So tens of millions vs billions lost.  Cool

[Ghost of LL 15705]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So tens of millions vs billions lost.  Cool

Pretty much.

But let's break that down a bit.  Relatively few American deaths.  Virtually no American civilian deaths.

So bad for us.  Really bad for our allies in the region.  Catastrophic for our enemies.

Basically a replay of the last two.

[BabaYaga 15632]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Pretty much.

But let's break that down a bit.  Relatively few American deaths.  Virtually no American civilian deaths.

So bad for us.  Really bad for our allies in the region.  Catastrophic for our enemies.

Basically a replay of the last two.

Let's also be clear.  It's not that they have 300 warheads (closer to 400, with plans for 1500 over the decade).  They have 300 ICBM silos.  We have roughly 450.  Since 2021, they've also launched more ballistic missiles for testing/training than the rest of the world combined.  This notion of geographic security is short-sighted as they have nuclear and diesel powered subs that carry ballistic missiles in addition to the mentioned hypersonic options that have ranges in the thousands of miles as well as FOBs with ranges exceeding 40K kilometers.  

As Russia just did, they can also change their NFU policy on a whim.  It's not gospel.  

[Ghost of LL 15705]

36 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Let's also be clear.  It's not that they have 300 warheads (closer to 400, with plans for 1500 over the decade).  They have 300 ICBM silos.  We have roughly 450.  Since 2021, they've also launched more ballistic missiles for testing/training than the rest of the world combined.  This notion of geographic security is short-sighted as they have nuclear and diesel powered subs that carry ballistic missiles in addition to the mentioned hypersonic options that have ranges in the thousands of miles as well as FOBs with ranges exceeding 40K kilometers.  

As Russia just did, they can also change their NFU policy on a whim.  It's not gospel.  

 I don't give a shit how many missiles they have.  I only care about warheads.  And as of mid-2021, China had 272 warheads, with some vague plans to double that number over the next couple decades.

We have 3,700 warheads in active deployment, with about an equal number in inactive storage.

So let's say China gets super pissed off and launches all 272 warheads.  That's very bad.  Would they concentrate on military targets or civilian?  Would they focus on the United States or would they also be targeting Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines?  Perhaps you see the issue--there's not enough to go around.

The United States, however, would be focused solely on China.  And 3,700 warheads is enough to destroy all of China.  

So would it be rational for China to initiate a nuclear exchange?  No--of course not.

But, but, but . . . China could do something completely irrational.  I suppose that's correct.  But your fear that China would do something completely irrational--something that China itself recognizes is irrational and is therefore contrary to their own defense policy--is itself irrational.

So yeah--I'm not terribly concerned about your phobias.

[mdmost 44111]

 

[Ghost of LL 15705]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

And that's how we started a war with the aliens.

[HiggyBaby 2621]

16 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

[FartingMonk 3630]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Let's also be clear.  It's not that they have 300 warheads (closer to 400, with plans for 1500 over the decade).  They have 300 ICBM silos.  We have roughly 450.  Since 2021, they've also launched more ballistic missiles for testing/training than the rest of the world combined.  This notion of geographic security is short-sighted as they have nuclear and diesel powered subs that carry ballistic missiles in addition to the mentioned hypersonic options that have ranges in the thousands of miles as well as FOBs with ranges exceeding 40K kilometers.  

As Russia just did, they can also change their NFU policy on a whim.  It's not gospel.  

And that's where you are letting the media scare the shit out of you.  Oh no.  China now has more than us.  Shut the fuck up.  Jesus Christ.  My little sea pup is out somewhere poking holes in the ocean and they have 24 ICBMs with MiRvs on it that will roll the entire world over.  The nuclear shit is stupid.  We all die.

[FartingMonk 3630]

Y'all keep acting like the Chinese are a bunch of fucking savages that have no regard to their lives.  It's fucking stupid 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22321]

Their leadership certainly has no regard for their people's lives

[FartingMonk 3630]

But they have regard to their own lives.  You think our leadership has any regards to our lives?

[BabaYaga 15632]

13 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

The nuclear shit is stupid.  We all die.

That's my point...

[Foosters 18287]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

That's my point...

So you're advocating for a closer, less-adversarial relationship to China, then?

[mdmost 44111]

I hope the Chicoms love their children too. 

[BabaYaga 15632]

5 minutes ago, Foosters said:

So you're advocating for a closer, less-adversarial relationship to China, then?

I'm advocating for a path that has the lowest potential for a possible nuclear war.  What are you advocating for?

[Foosters 18287]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm advocating for a path that has the lowest potential for a possible nuclear war.  What are you advocating for?

World peace, if we're speaking in generalities 

[FartingMonk 3630]

And I hope Americans love their children too.  This nuclear argument is stupid 

[YGIFS 19458]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

World peace, if we're speaking in generalities 

Really?  I like to speak of us all living in the mountains.  That's where I see myself in ten years.  Of course, there's the way the sunset hits the buildings in Rome that also gets me speaking.

[FartingMonk 3630]

20 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I hope the Chicoms love their children too. 

So what are we?  MagBabies Libkids?  Like what the fuck man

[mdmost 44111]

Not a Sting fan, I take it. 

[Ghost of LL 15705]

52 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I hope the Chicoms love their children too. 

I would imagine the do, since they have so few of them.

43 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

And I hope Americans love their children too.  This nuclear argument is stupid 

Any rational observer of American gun laws and the absence of any restrictive legislation in the years since Sandy Hook would conclude that we do not.

[Pescado_Rojo 19593]

1 hour ago, mdmost said:

I hope the Chicoms love their children too. 

They love the male ones...

[Parliament 14620]

Ouch

[BamaATL 16593]

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.  

[Nicole44 22326]

(While watching this play the REM song “it’s the end of the world as we know it”) 

 

[Captainant 28603]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

(While watching this play the REM song “it’s the end of the world as we know it”) 

 

and I feel fine

[elfenix 34784]

air force used U-2s to recon the balloons.

Quote

“High-resolution imagery from U-2 flybys revealed that the high-altitude balloon was capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations,” a senior State Department official said. 

The U-2 flights also confirmed that the craft relied on large solar panels to power its intelligence sensors.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-used-u-2-to-gather-intelligence-on-chinese-spy-balloon/

[nineliveslost 3012]

From the article:

"“Day-to-day we do not have the authority to collect intelligence within the United States of America,” Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the head of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told reporters Feb. 6. 

 

[KYHorn 17637]

 

[Armybrat 41450]

On 2/10/2023 at 2:47 PM, YGIFS said:

Really?  I like to speak of us all living in the mountains.  That's where I see myself in ten years.  Of course, there's the way the sunset hits the buildings in Rome that also gets me speaking.

Its not a bad view from the back porch in the mountains of Colorado either…

 

 

[Trey3216 15453]

On 2/10/2023 at 11:43 AM, BabaYaga said:

Jesus man, how can we casually sit back and pontificate on starting conflicts with two of the worlds largest armies that have nuclear weapons. 

• First strike
• Counter strike
• Retaliatory strike

We are talking weapons-free nukes.  I don't place a lot of comfort in this with words like "not likely", "pretty sure", and "no real likelihood"

Further, they don't need "first strike" capabilities.  They can very easily nuke a carrier group from any number of ways - specifically their hypersonic delivery options that are more advanced than our own.  

Yeah… all that fucking talk about Russia’s hypersonic missiles at the beginning of their demise has me fucking terrified.   If you think for a second everything the US announces to the world is all we have, then I don’t know what to tell you.  

[BabaYaga 15632]

15 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

  If you think for a second everything the US announces to the world is all we have, then I don’t know what to tell you.  

That's the point.  It also cuts both ways.  

[Armybrat 41450]

The hype is real?

[JesusSweatDuck 18169]

https://nypost.com/2023/02/13/china-says-us-flew-high-altitude-balloons-over-its-airspace/

 

 

[immamac 44421]

20 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

https://nypost.com/2023/02/13/china-says-us-flew-high-altitude-balloons-over-its-airspace/

 

 

I read this and laughed. They have no evidence at all and are just saying shit that we caught them doing. 

[JesusSweatDuck 18169]

37 minutes ago, immamac said:

I read this and laughed. They have no evidence at all and are just saying shit that we caught them doing. 

They're just making shit up and pandering to their own base

[Red Five 41789]

They're just making shit up and pandering to their own base

$9.95

[Dahobbs 18407]

18 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Yeah… all that fucking talk about Russia’s hypersonic missiles at the beginning of their demise has me fucking terrified.   If you think for a second everything the US announces to the world is all we have, then I don’t know what to tell you.  

 

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

That's the point.  It also cuts both ways.  

There is a pretty significant difference between the boost-glide hypersonic weapons that both Russia and China deploy, which are essentially ICBMs, and the type of hypersonic cruise-missiles that the US has in development and tested. 

[Post Oak 20589]

From Peter Zeihan this AM.

 

[BabaYaga 15632]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

 

There is a pretty significant difference between the boost-glide hypersonic weapons that both Russia and China deploy, which are essentially ICBMs, and the type of hypersonic cruise-missiles that the US has in development and tested. 

The Chinese DF-17 is operational and capable of hitting bases in Guam, Japan, and Korea and would difficult if not impossible to intercept multiple incoming missiles.  It's a ground-based by design, but there's nothing stopping them from strapping it do a large bomber as we are doing with the B-52.  

The US has successfully tested options (including glide based), but they neither operational nor in production (later this summer)