|
It's interesting how France is unscaved.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I’ve always thought no first use policies are the political equivalent of patting yourself on the back It matters for China though because only they can ostensibly use conventional ICBMs in a conflict without prompting a response.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Vs who? Presumably the United States to keep their carrier battlegroups at arms reach. Top Hats Monthly posted:Using a conventional ICBM would be so loving dumb on so many levels It's a strategy the PLA has been committing its entire force structure around for years now, they seem pretty confident it is in fact not dumb, but probably actually extremely effective at blunting American force projection in their backyard.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The DF-31/41 are not intended to be used with conventional warheads. Chinese policy to employ them only in retaliation; any situation in which they're launched will be treated like a full blown nuclear strike. I appear to be thinking of the DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) Anti-ship ballistic missile.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:Well, if velocity equals distance over time we simply need to divi- What the hell is this from.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
To be clear though Iraq was definitely not using Soviet doctrine, at least according to that one paper I read that got linked here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:A very interesting view is that Russia sees this as several opportunities to settle scores. The first is that it gets to stick Saudi Arabia for what they did in 1985, which was during the height of Afghanistan when the soviets were bleeding cash and needed it to buy everything their economy needed. In brief Saudi arabia spiked production there which cratered oil income ruining both Iran and the USSR at a stroke. This is a really really big reason why the Soviet economy just fell over at that point and never recovered. Well that's interesting, I thought it was a matter of them being kinda desperate because of their own financial woes but it's interesting if this is actually a opportune time in which to put the screws to Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I thought Mao was definitely not a fan of throwing men into a meat grinder to win ways, at least during the civil war. His doctrine was to only fight when the odds were in his favor and to cede land instead of spend lives because while land can be retaken soldiers aren’t as easy to get back This changed a bit during the Korean War because of the political optics of taking/holding Seoul ended up overpowering his military sense that normally would have dictated his actions to have withdrawn to better positions instead of wasting men and material on a doomed operation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
The thing about Mao is that he has had a very interesting sort of career that's very easy to draw comparisons with confucian narratives. Like if you compare him with Admiral Yi, they have some similar story arcs. Frequently arriving just in time to save the day, only to be sidelined after by the establishment career politicians who then beg for him to come back and give him renewed powers to save them, rinse and repeat until he was too powerful for them to sideline again. I don't really know anything about Stalin's early career but Mao more or less single handedly saved the Chinese revolution not just once but several times throughout the entire Jiangxi Soviet republic period and then the Long March afterwards. You can easily see how someone who not only experiences super success, but that success was a result of others loving up and you bailing them out of their own mess not once but repeatedly, maybe you didn't start out being a narcissist but I can see how it goes your head over time. Especially after 1949.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I love Ennis' Punisher Max. I'm utterly unashamed to say I enjoy that particular revenge / power fantasy escapism. One of these is kinda not like the others, lets not be unfair here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:This is literally the XB-70, down to the first flight in 1964. This is also the premise behind The Big One by Stuart Slade.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
I also think in regards to the carrier being on fire that the Chinese are taking their naval build up extremely seriously and will investigate extensively why this fire happened and what measures can be figured out to improve practices.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
I've been to the factory where they make those turret things, albeit as a kid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Most people I've talked to who are true believers in cryptocurrency tend to support it because of the *US's* monetary policies, i.e sanctions on Venezuela and so on. Not because China and Venezuela have those restrictions. On twitter from what I've seen, it's more of a proxy for anarcho beliefs, not because of some vague utility, which when you delve into their reasons almost always seem to be criminal.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Remember how in Wargames the Soviets somehow had 100 Typhoon's surrounding the continental USA?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:"No first use" policies are only meaningful as long as the nation claiming the policy can't credibly strike first. Once you get a few boomers it's basically just how much you trust the person with the button. I believe this has been debated extensively in this thread that China's NFU relies on a large number of specific aspects that make it considerably more credible than one may expect. Such as for example, a smaller arsenal.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
That legitimately looks photoshopped to me, I am shocked if that's real.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:China doesn't have to invade Taiwan. Additionally they can siege the island and keep the US naval at arms length away in ways they couldn't dream of 30 years ago. Imagine parking the 7th fleet in between the mainland and Taiwan today.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Yeah, the issue of Taiwanese independence essentially moots itself if Taiwan develops a credible second strike nuclear deterrent. People think it moots itself, and its tempting to look at the Iran, Ukraine and Libya examples and extrapolate to that conclusion, but I think there's a bit of circular reasoning/begging the question. Since you're mentally starting from, "I don't want X invaded, nuclear weapons are scary, ergo a nation with nuclear weapons will be scary and not be invaded!" but this isn't really the whole story. For one thing I imagine Taiwan deciding to go down that path probably immediately triggers a military response from the PRC, which is the one thing we're positing here that Taiwan is willing to spend billions of dollars to avoid happening; which means it very specifically failed at the primary goal having nuclear weapons was suppose to result in! People talk about how if the US was to ever lose merely a single aircraft carrier the perpetuity is eating a full nuclear response; or a single city. Even if we assume this isn't widespread as a belief and isn't policy, the fact is, if we assume that this was US policy, why would it be ridiculous that Taiwan using a small nuclear response (and it will likely be small, Taiwan is not breaking out MIRVs after testing its first atomic in anything approaching "fast" or "soon") might also invite a reprisal that would harm Taiwan far more than it can harm the PRC? We enter into many of the same arguments as to why Ukraine retaining the arsenal it inherited from the USSR wasn't feasible and honestly many of them would still apply today; and Russia sending in little green men honestly hasn't budged that calculus at all. Ultimately will Taiwan be willing to not only undergo the expense of acquiring not only the warheads, but also the redundancy to insure delivery and their security and maintenance? Especially if doing so comes with additional economic costs like the loss of trade because of sanctions? It's not really a good idea. Also mirv's I think nowadays tend to be much smaller yields, 200,000 to 300,000 kt not mt yields; as accuracy goes up, yields go down and I'm not sure if you can really have both mirv warheads and high yields effectively without sacrificing something. Also Taiwan is probably the *easiest* case scenario for an ABM, since they would be unlikely to acquire the number of warheads to effectively saturate countermeasures, are a small geographical area which limits the space a warhead would travel, and due to similar cultures probably the easiest situation to infiltrate and get accurate up to date information on capability, location, readiness, and so on. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 18:53 on May 27, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Taiwan finishing a nuclear armament program would be great for Taiwan's strategic position. Beginning a nuclear armament program though... I would argue that either of those are equally bad for Taiwan with no real upside except in a narrow focused spectrum of possibilities that are unlikely to be realistic to depend on. For example. Would Taiwan decide it should use nuclear weapons in response to a blockade ala Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 Nuclear Boogaloo? If not, then nuclear weapons were useless and just paints a target on them. There's a lot of things China could do that would make Taiwan considerably worse off but not prompt a nuclear response; or more specifically, that it could do without expecting a nuclear response.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This time the shipyard is in BC. And perversely, the Quebec shipyard is the only one doing things on time and on budget, which of course is why the fed fought tooth and nail to keep them from contributing I swear to god how do we afford to spend so much on basically a single ship. Isn't that like, a 1 million$ missile to take it out? Or mission kill it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Right I don't doubt that, it just feels like we're spending a lot on something that feels very "all eggs in one basket"-y, such that our ability to do the above and have that capability are at risk because of the cost, should an accident or attrition occurs and hamper our ability to contribute to a multinational mission. Having something to do the things we want is definitely important, I many pages ago even argued that military spending as a jobs program has utility so on various angles I'm on board for spending money for something; my concerns rests on the concern that we're spending a lot, on something that by virtue of its cost, will actually limit how we use it because then it becomes too big to use in a remotely dangerous theater.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Usually two comparable peer powers going to war is damaging to both I don't think is too controversial.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It makes no difference whatsoever how much they cost, the ship is not the point. The point is to shovel money into the shipbuilding industry for purely political reasons. As I later clarified, I really want it to be the case that the ship, it's capabilities, the way it fits in our strategic posture and in relation to the bigger picture when cooperating with our allies, all meet and exceed every requirement and expectation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:I have no idea about DBZ so I might be seeing something that is just cartoon camo but is whatever he is wearing supposed to be uh, watermelon type pattern? For some reason it seems like a weird combination of Mr. Popo (who is kinda problematic) and Cell; Cell is like a genetically engineered mutant alien creature, like Lavos's true form in Chrono Trigger (same artist). So it's just like, an insectoid carapace type deal. e: damnit beaten like Gohan who refused to dodge.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Now that is something to watch carefully. China has been pushing pretty hard to grab up bits of India and Bhutan as part of their mission to grab bits of land from literally every single neighboring state (and also some that aren't neighbors) and it seems they're escalating things again. China is neighboured on land, by 14 nations and only has had disputes recently with just two or so regarding the direct land border. So no, not literally every state; putting aside disputes like the Sino-Soviet border conflicts or the earlier Sino-Indian war where they were far more arguably in the right. I don't think there's any need to be scaremongering.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Why yes, if you discount most of the border disputes that China actually does have with literally every single neighbor and only count the ones they're currently sending in troops to steal land (but not water) from, it does look less worrying! But when you consider they have border disputes with 18 countries despite only bordering 14 and they're actively engaged in the military occupation of several of those areas right now it actually is pretty worrying! Nations have border disputes all the time, the same way people and corporate entities engage in litigation all the time. Conflating merely having what is essentially a legal dispute between two sovereign entities with disputes that have resulted in violence is scaremongering. You'd be surprised to know what other nations also have border disputes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
^ this.Memento posted:Oh so they're only in actual disputes with their neighbours who happen to be nuclear armed, and you consider this information to be reassuring. Canada also has border disputes with a nation that is nuclear armed, in fact it is in dispute with at least two nations who are nuclear armed. There are in fact a very large number of nations with territorial disputes with a given nuclear armed power; for many years if not decades and in some cases more than 100 years. Singling out China isn't rational.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
Memento posted:We're not singling out China for having border disputes with nuclear powers, we're singling out China for having border disputes with nuclear powers that degenerate into people being beaten to death with rocks and batons. That isn't what's being disputed, what's being disputed is Warbadger's exaggerating the scale of the problem to include things that aren't violent or weren't actually instigated by China and things that are just normal nation-state bs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 13:10
|
|
|
Memento posted:You're saying that China's border disputes are normal and just a cost of doing business in the modern globalised world. China is, however, grabbing as much land as it can and beating people to death on its borders and this is a fact you're deciding is not worth engaging with. No one is condoning anything, I am criticizing exaggerations that go from criticizing a bad thing, to scaremongering. Warbadger posted:Now that is something to watch carefully. China has been pushing pretty hard to grab up bits of India and Bhutan as part of their mission to grab bits of land from literally every single neighboring state (and also some that aren't neighbors) and it seems they're escalating things again. This isn't to say that they aren't engaging in a border dispute with India, only that to say "Literally every nation" is alarmist and eye rolling.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 13:26
|
|
|
Memento posted:Look I don't want to be the one to say it, but it seems like your issue is with the rhetoric used by posters in this thread, as opposed to the actions taken by sovereign nations that have ended multiple lives. I'm clearly objecting to the factual matter at hand that China is not literally in dispute with all 14 nations on its land borders?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 13:47
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Communist Party of China is quite bad. IIRC the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict was fought by veteran mountaineer troops who fought in Korea; troops who were well acclimated to mountain warfare in the harsh elements while the Indian troops were... not... Additionally I believe it was largely a regimental level affair. The total forces were 80,000 for the *theater* but based on what I remember I think most of the maneuver (why does firefox not think this is a word?) elements were smaller formations. Presumably in the 60ish years since then the Indian military had more time to train and build up infrastructure to the region and train, so that's going to make things more even overall all things considered.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Iran feels like it has the Tony Stark of aerospace industries in their ability to create solutions from limited resources.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
I actually tried to find that shovel on Amazon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Your local surplus store undoubtedly has them, or something very close to it. Yeah but it's funnier if I can hold it up and go, "This is my Chinese army shovel."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
So how does radio signals and intercepts works. If you have like, a submarine that sends messages back home to HQ, and vice versa, how are these broadcasted and how do they get intercepted for decryption? Particularly lets say in the 40's to 60's. Is it like a tight beam that you basically have to be in the right place at the right time to intercept/jam; or does everyone broadcast on particular ranges of frequencies in like a big arc and you just need a receiver somewhere in range to listen in?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:In WWII, it was simple omnidirectional radio broadcast. A lot of boats were lost bcause Britain had managed to squeeze intercept gear down to something you could fit on a DD, and standard practice was to radio in a contact report so more boats could vector in on a convoy. This wouldn't allow decryptio n or triangulation, but you would get a warning of the nearby sub and a bearing. What levels of command would bother to enigma encrypt, presumably the point of enigma was for quick usage, so down to the battalion level? Company level? Were their radio transmissions also omnidirectional? Could you get an idea for how many divisions were active in your sector just from radio density or something like that? Were the radios different for say, a U-Boat to Berlin vs a panzer battalion to division/army hq?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:^that is a huge subject you have just asked about^ I think you will have to do some general reading as you seem to be asking for general knowledge. Oops, I somehow missed your response! Sorry about that. Thanks for your answer! To step back a bit, depending on what sort of frequency that was used, as long as you were within range of the broadcast you could could listen in and hear like morse code that you could note down and try to decrypt? Is Military Communications: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century a good book?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Splode posted:Short answer: kinda, but not really. Would it be closer to the WW1 example of "kinda easy" if its WW2 or early cold war?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
I think the problem is the delays don't accomplish anything as the US because there's no end-game; it's either invade, wait until they have nuclear weapons in which case invasion is off the table. e: Hope this wasn't too political, just speaking to the cost-benefit analysis of what buying a few months is worth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 21:41
|
|