Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   China must pay. We'll sue 'em and threaten them and tariff them to death. Don't tread on us. DIFFICULTY: "Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, United States, Aircraft carrier, Christian Brose, John McCain, World War II, F-35 Lightning II, United States Navy, intelligence failure  
•       •       •

1527 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2020 at 8:07 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



126 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-12 10:01:38 PM  
But, but, they have bullets now.
 
2020-05-12 10:20:26 PM  
Maybe aim lower, maybe Grenada actually invented the virus and need to pay. Or umm, are there any uninhabited islands around?
 
2020-05-12 10:35:45 PM  
China China China

Whatever you do, don't pay attention to Russia
 
2020-05-12 11:28:40 PM  
David Ignatius should stick to writing spy novels.
His conclusions are all wrong..
China could very well bombard Guam and Okinawa with missiles in a surprise attack; they could also attempt to sink an aircraft carrier. But all that does is create open war.
Why would China bother, when they're already bleeding America with a thousand cuts?
If China were to invade Taiwan right now; Trump would huff and puff and then bellow, but still do nothing of significant value. Because he's weak and indecisive.

As for military ability..
China 'technically' has a blue water navy, but it has limited experience. They spend most of their time in the south china sea, harassing fishermen and attempting to make lovers of jelly fish.
The US Navy has experience earned and learned with blood and painful lessons.

Not to mention this daft garbage David is throwing around about airborne drones being cheaper and better than F-35's; or comparing the Orca to a Virginia class sub, is just plain dumb.

China is relatively able to defend it's territory, it is certainly not able to wage a distant war. If China attacked Guam or an aircraft carrier; the first to go airborne would be the B-2's, along with F-35's & 22's as escorts. They would systematically destroy the long distance defenses along China's east coast. Then the Ohio class SSGN's would come into play, ultra quiet, they used to carry 14 nuclear Trident missiles, now they carry 154 Tomahawk's.

*sigh*

/Excuse me, I gotta go wipe my dick off in the foreword of a Tom Clancy novel...
 
2020-05-13 2:52:06 AM  
This is assuming both China and the USA would sustain a conventional war without nuking teh fvkn world to hell.
I'm not a believer.
 
2020-05-13 4:15:13 AM  
So, we lost the tariff war, and the next bad idea is a hot war?
 
2020-05-13 5:20:08 AM  

hammettman: So, we lost the tariff war, and the next bad idea is a hot war?


Trump is dead set on ensuring that his presidential record remain unblemished by success.

He knows he's going to lose the election. If he loses, he goes to jail. If he goes to jail, he figures he might as well be dead. So why not take the rest of us with him?
 
2020-05-13 6:07:30 AM  
The problem is: they have more planes, tanks and people than we have conventional ordinance.

/ for example, our total population is 300 mill...China has 300 million women in their army.
 
2020-05-13 6:31:41 AM  
China has a shiatload of disposable people. Aside from nukes being used, they'd win from attrition alone. And we'd also have nowhere to get our MAGA hats.
 
2020-05-13 6:49:23 AM  

iheartscotch: China has 300 million women in their army.


[citation needed]
 
2020-05-13 7:23:21 AM  

Redh8t: David Ignatius should stick to writing spy novels.
His conclusions are all wrong..
China could very well bombard Guam and Okinawa with missiles in a surprise attack; they could also attempt to sink an aircraft carrier. But all that does is create open war.
Why would China bother, when they're already bleeding America with a thousand cuts?
If China were to invade Taiwan right now; Trump would huff and puff and then bellow, but still do nothing of significant value. Because he's weak and indecisive.

As for military ability..
China 'technically' has a blue water navy, but it has limited experience. They spend most of their time in the south china sea, harassing fishermen and attempting to make lovers of jelly fish.
The US Navy has experience earned and learned with blood and painful lessons.

Not to mention this daft garbage David is throwing around about airborne drones being cheaper and better than F-35's; or comparing the Orca to a Virginia class sub, is just plain dumb.

China is relatively able to defend it's territory, it is certainly not able to wage a distant war. If China attacked Guam or an aircraft carrier; the first to go airborne would be the B-2's, along with F-35's & 22's as escorts. They would systematically destroy the long distance defenses along China's east coast. Then the Ohio class SSGN's would come into play, ultra quiet, they used to carry 14 nuclear Trident missiles, now they carry 154 Tomahawk's.

*sigh*

/Excuse me, I gotta go wipe my dick off in the foreword of a Tom Clancy novel...


Yeah, with a huge army and lots of units for local air action and brown water naval ability, any fight with China and the US would go to the side with the home team advantage.  At least in a war game.
The reality, both sides would attack each other's economy, and probably committing mutual financial destruction.
 
2020-05-13 7:25:50 AM  
Brose envisions a military version of the "Internet of things" - smart systems at the outer edges of our defenses which can blunt China's dominance without breaking the budget or risking all-or-nothing confrontations.

i0.wp.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-13 7:29:14 AM  

Redh8t: it is certainly not able to wage a distant war. If China attacked Guam or an aircraft carrier; the first to go airborne would be the B-2's, along with F-35's & 22's as escorts. They would systematically destroy the long distance defenses along China's east coast.


FTFA:
Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled...our F-35 fighter jets couldn't reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

Hmm, now who to trust; an article from the Washington Post, or random Farker?
 
2020-05-13 7:44:40 AM  

Shaggy_C: Redh8t: it is certainly not able to wage a distant war. If China attacked Guam or an aircraft carrier; the first to go airborne would be the B-2's, along with F-35's & 22's as escorts. They would systematically destroy the long distance defenses along China's east coast.

FTFA:
Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled...our F-35 fighter jets couldn't reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

Hmm, now who to trust; an article from the Washington Post, or random Farker?


I mean, the Washington Post used "elitests" as their sources.  And who the f*ck is the US Military to tell us the capabilities of the US Military?
 
2020-05-13 8:10:04 AM  
For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.
 
2020-05-13 8:15:52 AM  

Redh8t: David Ignatius should stick to writing spy novels.
His conclusions are all wrong..
China could very well bombard Guam and Okinawa with missiles in a surprise attack; they could also attempt to sink an aircraft carrier. But all that does is create open war.
Why would China bother, when they're already bleeding America with a thousand cuts?
If China were to invade Taiwan right now; Trump would huff and puff and then bellow, but still do nothing of significant value. Because he's weak and indecisive.

As for military ability..
China 'technically' has a blue water navy, but it has limited experience. They spend most of their time in the south china sea, harassing fishermen and attempting to make lovers of jelly fish.
The US Navy has experience earned and learned with blood and painful lessons.

Not to mention this daft garbage David is throwing around about airborne drones being cheaper and better than F-35's; or comparing the Orca to a Virginia class sub, is just plain dumb.

China is relatively able to defend it's territory, it is certainly not able to wage a distant war. If China attacked Guam or an aircraft carrier; the first to go airborne would be the B-2's, along with F-35's & 22's as escorts. They would systematically destroy the long distance defenses along China's east coast. Then the Ohio class SSGN's would come into play, ultra quiet, they used to carry 14 nuclear Trident missiles, now they carry 154 Tomahawk's.

*sigh*

/Excuse me, I gotta go wipe my dick off in the foreword of a Tom Clancy novel...


People in Japan were making very similar arguments in 1941 about the inevitable victory of the IJN due to their superior numbers, technology, and experience.
 
2020-05-13 8:16:29 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.


The allies the president and republicans have been shiatting on for years while cozying up to dictators? The allies we left flat footed when we pulled out of the Iran deal? The allies we left hanging on the TPP?

You shouldn't expect our allies to think engaging China in open war is a particularly useful venture for them.
 
2020-05-13 8:17:22 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Tr0mBoNe: For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.

The allies the president and republicans have been shiatting on for years while cozying up to dictators? The allies we left flat footed when we pulled out of the Iran deal? The allies we left hanging on the TPP?

You shouldn't expect our allies to think engaging China in open war is a particularly useful venture for them.


That's why I said "for now" as the situation hasn't changed yet. Nobody has kicked America out (other than Turkey, kinda but they suck)
 
2020-05-13 8:19:02 AM  

Shaggy_C: Redh8t: it is certainly not able to wage a distant war. If China attacked Guam or an aircraft carrier; the first to go airborne would be the B-2's, along with F-35's & 22's as escorts. They would systematically destroy the long distance defenses along China's east coast.

FTFA:
Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled...our F-35 fighter jets couldn't reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

Hmm, now who to trust; an article from the Washington Post, or random Farker?


relatably.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-13 8:20:51 AM  
I'm still waiting on that sweet, sweet Mexico money for that southern border wall.
 
2020-05-13 8:22:25 AM  

hammettman: So, we lost the tariff war, and the next bad idea is a hot war?


I suspect that Donnie will have a convenient stroke before that happens.

No one wants a shooting war with China. Especially with this mess going on.
 
2020-05-13 8:23:40 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: HotWingConspiracy: Tr0mBoNe: For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.

The allies the president and republicans have been shiatting on for years while cozying up to dictators? The allies we left flat footed when we pulled out of the Iran deal? The allies we left hanging on the TPP?

You shouldn't expect our allies to think engaging China in open war is a particularly useful venture for them.

That's why I said "for now" as the situation hasn't changed yet. Nobody has kicked America out (other than Turkey, kinda but they suck)


Haven't kicked you out because we have to sell you stuff, but I can't think of any 1st world leader who would follow trump into a war. First nobody would believe his evidence.
 
2020-05-13 8:24:45 AM  
I forget where I heard it, but there was an amusing story about a war game the US military was playing, and they basically had to say the enemy wasn't allowed to act, the US side was losing so badly. I guess saving face is more important to the generals than actually learning anything.
 
2020-05-13 8:25:30 AM  

GardenWeasel: China China China

Whatever you do, don't pay attention to Russia


Whynotboth.jpg
 
2020-05-13 8:26:30 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: I forget where I heard it, but there was an amusing story about a war game the US military was playing, and they basically had to say the enemy wasn't allowed to act, the US side was losing so badly. I guess saving face is more important to the generals than actually learning anything.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenn​i​um_Challenge_2002

Some people learned things which is why the Americans have the LCS class ships now. Of course, they're useless but don't let that distract you.
 
2020-05-13 8:27:31 AM  
America has this dangerous idea in our head that we and we alone get to decide the scope of any war.  So we're confident we can beat China because we'll just limit the scope of the conflict to naval battles, etc.

But either party can expand the scope of a war, and China has the ability to force us into a land war by invading South Korea, or into range of their massive coastal defenses by invading Taiwan.  And if they have a way to escalate a conflict from one where they can't win to one where they can't lose, why wouldn't they?

The only reason I can think of that China would choose to lose a limited conflict instead of winning a larger one is because they wouldn't want the US in turn to panic and start flinging nukes.  But they might assume we wouldn't, as we didn't in the Korean war or in the Vietnam war.  We were a better people then though.
 
2020-05-13 8:28:23 AM  
If the moronic imbecile in the WH had been serious about taking on China economically, instead of starting trade wars with every country on Earth, except Russia, using the virus as leverage to get anyone who had not joined us yet to help curb China's power would be a great idea. But we pissed off every country on the planet and have zero political capital to do any of that.
 
2020-05-13 8:28:53 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.


Bullets and missiles can disrupt food and fuel supplies, film at 11.
 
2020-05-13 8:29:02 AM  
He wasn't saying that if China attacked the USA that China would win. He was saying that if the USA attacked China, that the USA couldn't defeat China.

There's a difference.

The Chinese aren't interested in taking the USA, but they can stop the USA from taking China. He was saying that China can shut the US military out of a sphere of influence, and that this sphere of influence is growing.

Local allies can no longer count on American guarantees of protection. And that's how you lose local allies.
 
2020-05-13 8:29:35 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: I forget where I heard it, but there was an amusing story about a war game the US military was playing, and they basically had to say the enemy wasn't allowed to act, the US side was losing so badly. I guess saving face is more important to the generals than actually learning anything.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mille​n​nium_Challenge_2002
 
2020-05-13 8:30:25 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.


And trade.

On an unrelated note, we just started a trade war with China recently, lost almost immediately, and had to surrender in a humiliating and public fashion.

Just sayin'.
 
2020-05-13 8:30:52 AM  

hubiestubert: hammettman: So, we lost the tariff war, and the next bad idea is a hot war?

I suspect that Donnie will have a convenient stroke before that happens.

No one wants a shooting war with China. Especially with this mess going on.


Oh please. You know as well as I that there are MAGA idiots who are sure we'd win a war against China easily, and are itching for a fight.
 
2020-05-13 8:31:02 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: I forget where I heard it, but there was an amusing story about a war game the US military was playing, and they basically had to say the enemy wasn't allowed to act, the US side was losing so badly. I guess saving face is more important to the generals than actually learning anything.


I'd have to search for it, but this was the case in some simulations / wargames conducted for the Middle Eastern theatre.  The 'enemy' was able to defeat the occupiers consistently through the use of low tech C & C.

So they complained, and changed the rules of the simulation until they won.
 
2020-05-13 8:31:25 AM  

PsyLord: I'm still waiting on that sweet, sweet Mexico money for that southern border wall.


They're paying it in our new Trade Deal.  Try to keep up.
 
2020-05-13 8:32:08 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-13 8:35:00 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: hubiestubert: hammettman: So, we lost the tariff war, and the next bad idea is a hot war?

I suspect that Donnie will have a convenient stroke before that happens.

No one wants a shooting war with China. Especially with this mess going on.

Oh please. You know as well as I that there are MAGA idiots who are sure we'd win a war against China easily, and are itching for a fight.


Great, put them in transports and ship them off to Asia.
 
2020-05-13 8:35:31 AM  

SomeAmerican: America has this dangerous idea in our head that we and we alone get to decide the scope of any war.  So we're confident we can beat China because we'll just limit the scope of the conflict to naval battles, etc.

But either party can expand the scope of a war, and China has the ability to force us into a land war by invading South Korea, or into range of their massive coastal defenses by invading Taiwan.  And if they have a way to escalate a conflict from one where they can't win to one where they can't lose, why wouldn't they?

The only reason I can think of that China would choose to lose a limited conflict instead of winning a larger one is because they wouldn't want the US in turn to panic and start flinging nukes.  But they might assume we wouldn't, as we didn't in the Korean war or in the Vietnam war.  We were a better people then though.


Chaos Monkey is itching to fling a nuc at someone
 
2020-05-13 8:35:59 AM  
We're gonna send in those idiot mercenaries that just got captured in Venezuela, aren't we?

At least Chinese carryout will be on every street corner now.
 
2020-05-13 8:36:28 AM  
On the one hand china is probably not nearly as militarily effective as theyd like us to think. They don't have much combat experience as a modern nation, and there are a lot of valid questions about the capabilities of their military hardware given that they don't seem to have companies producing things like reliable civilian airliners. On the other hand we apparently no longer have companies that can produce things like reliable civilian airliners and despite our extensive combat experience we have a poor record to show for it post Korea. Last time we fought china they were a fledgling nation and Korea was fought to a draw so... also yes our blue water Navy should be much better than China's, but our boats are the ones that accidentally ram into container ships because the people piloting them don't know what they are doing. Our public "state of the art" military technology programs have recently included a lot of massive failures, the f-35, the litoral combat ships, the magnetic catapults, etc.

Then we kind of get to the 10,000,000lb gorilla in the room, leadership and morale. We all know perfectly well from experience trump would be entirely unable to manage the role of cic, and I have no faith that when that becomes part of Jared's portfolio that he will do any better. Xi may be reprehensible, but by most indications he seems to be capable of planning things out and imposing his will. Trump couldn't manage a food truck effectively let alone manage a hot war. Then there is morale, less than half the country supports trump, i can't imagine that growing much beyond 55% approval in a shooting war, and it's going to start fading more quickly than it did for bush ii in Iraq. He won't be able to maintain public support very long and then it will be unrest at home on a level that will put Vietnam protests to shame.

So the only outcomes I can see as plausible for a war with china are
1) we both nuke everything and it's the end of life as we know it
2) our propaganda is all true and theirs is all fake and we are able to neutralize their defenses with stealth superweapons. After that we essentially go home since we know there is no plausible way of successfully invading and occupying them
3) both of our propaganda is untrue, we blow some shiat up but lose some ships and planes, we negotiate a ceasefire and withdrawal. With trump and Jared negotiating we probably end up holding the short end of the stick on whatever settlements are hashed out
 
2020-05-13 8:36:29 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: For now, China lacks the vast network of allies that the US relies on for logistical support. Until that changes, China is stuck planning their inevitable invasion of Taiwan and other local political situations.

War is not won by bullets or missiles. It's won by food and fuel.


The USA *had* a solid network of alliances. Since Bush's policy of unilateral military adventurism and Trump's policy of ... is it a policy? ... your allies are now basically discussing whether they can trust the USA and its guarantees and treaties.
 
KIA
2020-05-13 8:37:14 AM  

tonguedepressor: This is assuming both China and the USA would sustain a conventional war without nuking teh fvkn world to hell.
I'm not a believer.


True.  Seldom has there been less confidence in our political leadership and candidates.
 
2020-05-13 8:37:46 AM  
Careful. The last decade includes about 7 years of Saint Obama's presidency.
 
2020-05-13 8:38:05 AM  
born_yesterday:

So they complained, and changed the rules of the simulation until they won.

Like Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru--they didn't lose or cheat, they "changed the conditions of the test"
 
2020-05-13 8:38:44 AM  
The column makes the claim that the pentagon should be investing in unmanned XQ-58A drones instead of fighter jets. But it also says that China could destroy all our spy and comm satellites in moments.

Sooooo....don't those unmanned drones rely on satellites to function?
 
2020-05-13 8:41:04 AM  

SomeAmerican: America has this dangerous idea in our head that we and we alone get to decide the scope of any war.  So we're confident we can beat China because we'll just limit the scope of the conflict to naval battles, etc.

But either party can expand the scope of a war, and China has the ability to force us into a land war by invading South Korea, or into range of their massive coastal defenses by invading Taiwan.  And if they have a way to escalate a conflict from one where they can't win to one where they can't lose, why wouldn't they?

The only reason I can think of that China would choose to lose a limited conflict instead of winning a larger one is because they wouldn't want the US in turn to panic and start flinging nukes.  But they might assume we wouldn't, as we didn't in the Korean war or in the Vietnam war.  We were a better people then though.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-13 8:41:28 AM  
TL;DR we let capitalism infect our military and now it's doing what it always does. A handful of corrupt pig farkers are making a phenomenal amount of money, and we'll all be property of China because as a country we're so farking stupid that we see greed as a virtue.
 
2020-05-13 8:43:49 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [Fark user image 300x168]


The f**k?
 
2020-05-13 8:45:33 AM  

Chain Smokes Freely: Careful. The last decade includes about 7 years of Saint Obama's presidency.


Whatabout!
 
2020-05-13 8:46:02 AM  

jso2897: Zeb Hesselgresser: [Fark user image 300x168]

The f**k?


That's what it does now. It's even dumber and lazier than what it used to do, which was already impressively dumb and lazy. Ignore it.
 
2020-05-13 8:46:15 AM  
If you mess with China, you are messing with of the oligarch's profits.
This will never stand in the USA.
It isn't war with the Chinese you should be worried about, it is the war by the wealthy that will be the defining one. The one reason Bloomberg has chosen to support Biden is his support of the Chinese while Trump keeps messing with them wanting his cut.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.