Biden v. Trump Election Mega Thread

[Gergar12]

I've heard this multiple times, so it may be a meme argument, but all the US has to do is blockade China, causing mass starvation and ending whatever pipe dream they had.

In fact I remember an amusing spacebattles post where Japan could defeat China alone by sinking every vessel moving to or from the direction of China, which would scare off any attempt at trade, and then Japan would mass produce anti-ship missiles which would annihilate any fleet that tried to approach it.

They get food from Russia, they get shipments of goods from their port in Pakistan. Your move.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

They get food from Russia, they get shipments of goods from their port in Pakistan. Your move.

I mean if we're going to go full on Ton Clancy here, then Russia actually doesn't send food. Russia and China haven't ever really been pals, so Russia uses the opportunity of a skirmish between us and China to knock China back and expand its own influence in Asia, and they exert political muscle over Pakistan to have them toe this line.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Andddddd????

 

[I can't enter my old name]

They get food from Russia, they get shipments of goods from their port in Pakistan. Your move.

Since China has been alienating their neighbors over bizzare claims like Vladivostok, I think Russia would be smart enough not to create a situation that would bite them in the ass in the immediate future.

 

[Gergar12]

Since China has been alienating their neighbors over bizzare claims like Vladivostok, I think Russia would be smart enough not to create a situation that would bite them in the ass in the immediate future.

Russia's Putin hates the US like I hate the CCP. They destroyed the USSR when Putin was stationed in East Germany, and he saw first hand how the US destroyed the Soviet Empire. We took everything from him in a sense just like the CCP took my siblings from me.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I just did my early voting.

Not that it actually matters since I live in California. No matter who I vote for Biden will win the state.

 

[Elijin]

If America wants to wave it's dick around policing places that treat people poorly and violate human rights, might I recommend the first country they focus on being America.

 

[lil devils x]

If America wants to wave it's dick around policing places that treat people poorly and violate human rights, might I recommend the first country they focus on being America.

Yea, the current party in charge doesn't care about the world, they are just trying to loot the coffers before anyone kicks them out. ;s

 

[Hawki]

I mean if we're going to go full on Ton Clancy here,

Tom Clancy? Dude, I take your Tom Clancy and raise you a Dale Brown.

I mean, have you seen the plots of his novels?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, I recommended a credible ABM system or anti-ballistic missile systems like GMD, SM-3/Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot before using a nuke so we don't get nuked back

An ABM system doesn't guarantee no ballistic missiles get through. It especially doesn't guarantee against submarine launched missiles (which can be launched from anywhere there's ocean, and the US has a lot of that around), or guided missiles (which aren't ballistic), and presumably the Chinese would have more of those in this scenario. It absolutely doesn't defend against other delivery methods.

Now, a good ABM system only needs to ensure that some enemy missiles will be intercepted, and so some places will be saved, and the enemy won't know which in advance, making it too risky to attack. But that's something else.

(Also, Patriot?)

How many Chinese nuclear devices initiated in US cities is acceptable? I'm going to go with "zero". Just one device, in New York or Washington or LA, and the US is not having a good day.

 

[Agema]

Clinton, Obama, and Biden gave them the freest trade compared with the republicans. And I am not a fan of Nixon, GWB, or HW either. It was our free trade that let them grow their economy.

This wasn't necessarily a bad idea. Mutual trade for mutual benefit, with the added advantage of trying to lever China away from the USSR, at least in the Nixon days when there still was a USSR. This could have played out many different ways, but the reality that's emerged in the last decade is that China is appearing to be increasingly not playing ball in a way the USA would like. And so the USA is in the process of pulling back from it.

In an historical context, this is all normal. Countries have to work with other countries, and as power ebbs and flows, switch strategies and allegiances. The future cannot be predicted, everyone can only make what seems like the best idea at the time. With hindsight we argue we shouldn't have worked with China so much, but that's a luxury that people who had to make decisions at the time didn't have.

"In 2019, Peter Robertson, a professor from the University of Western Australia, argued that using conventional currency conversion as opposed to more accurate "purchasing power parity" (PPP) exchange rates dramatically understated China's military capabilities and that China's real military spending was equivalent to US spending of $455 billion, calculated from a PPP perspective. "

Sound enough reasoning. However, I suspect they are technologically some way behind the USA, not just in terms of hardware, but tactics, etc. I expect that to diminish over time, but plenty of that money is catch-up rather than capability.

After accounting for PPP, the Chinese military has twice the personnel as the US military; so that might be 75% of the USA's military spend (PPP), but it's back down to about 40% in spend per serviceman. I would suggest that deficit would show in terms of battlefield quality - as long as China cannot leverage quantity, advantage USA.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Buyetyen]

I literally have a BA in International relations and a minor in World Politics. Where is your degree???

Congratulations on showing up to class for 4 years. You're still advocating for a nuclear holocaust.

 

[Trunkage]

Tom Clancy? Dude, I take your Tom Clancy and raise you a Dale Brown.

I mean, have you seen the plots of his novels?

Oh shit, what's the stupid Australia author's name that are as terrible as these guys and pretends to write like them. I wanna say Reilly

 

[Agema]

China is still at least a decade away from being anything more then a regional superpower in military terms. Their navy is still mostly littoral and the term "green water navy" (coastal and ocean near the own nation) was invented more or less to explain what China's current capability is. Their air force is large but lacks long distance bombers and their army is in the transition from a conscript-based foot infantry dominated force into a modern mechanized army. China's neighbors should be very, very scared of the PLA, but it still doesn't have the capability to challenge the USA. If current ratios for both are sustained the PLA will be a contender in the late 2020's or early 2030's and that's assuming that the USA doesn't react and that NATO decides to look the other way if China tries to military challenge the USA.

This is one of those situations when no one can realistically invade China, because their military is just that large. But China can't strike against anyone outside of their immediate home region which prevents them from being a global contender or a serious military threat to the USA or Europe. And even in 2035, the USA will still have twice the number of aircraft carriers that China plans to have and US carriers are decidedly bigger.

I suspect it's not just that but having appropriate alliances. Without a great deal of fleet or other support, an aircraft carrier is mostly just a gigantic target (a criticism that could be made of the Royal Navy - alone it lacks the support ships to adequately defend any aircraft carrier it deployed). For any sort of substantial operations, you'd want a land base. Whether China has these is questionable, so there's plenty of diplomatic work to do, and there would be a lot of resistance.

Also, I fundamentally believe that the only way a country can learn a lot about warfare is by doing it. The USA has regularly carried out operations from which it will have learnt a great deal and constantly refreshed: tactics, experience, ironing out a lot of small equipment problems, logistics problems, weeding out incompetent officers etc. In the Napoleonic wars, it took many of the combatants about five years to catch up with France. In WW2, maybe 2-3 years to catch up with Germany even with constant, intense fighting to learn from.

China has not carried out a meaningful military operation in decades, and even then did so in large part with tactics based on quantity over quality, which are unlikely to be useful far from its borders logistically, so it requires a change in doctrine, too. It's got a long way to go to learn all that. Russia might give it some training and support, but I can't help but feel Russia might be much less sharing than it has been as China increasingly poses it a geopolitical and military threat too.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, I fundamentally believe that the only way a country can learn a lot about warfare is by doing it.

Second that. I'd also point of that the US has had aircraft carriers for about a generation for every year that China has had theirs, they've plenty of institutionalised knowledge there.

OTOH, there's always concerns that the military is learning the wrong lessons, that officers whose careers have been about policing actions in the third World don't have the right mindset to fight a peer or near peer enemy. There's always stories about US military types clashing with local forces they are training to fight their enemies because of this.

 

[Hawki]

Oh shit, what's the stupid Australia author's name that are as terrible as these guys and pretends to write like them. I wanna say Reilly

Matthew Riley.

 

[Silvanus]

Part of that was and issue of exploits in the system of being able to claim treatment from the military where a few people were joining the military then coming out as Trans just outside of basic training.

Also the push to have people recognised as Trans based on social transition and the normal attempts on bases etc to have male and female housing separated and lets say issues regarding that.

I'm not really interested in whatever bullshit rationale has been dreamt up for it. Banning entire demographics of people from service isn't a sensible approach to any of this; it's sheer prejudice and discrimination, and a sop to theocratic assholes. The LGBT community is a target for the Republican Party, and same-sex marriage is no different.

Also and probably most important.

Trans =|= gay they can be independent things entirely.

Obviously. Why are you bringing this up?

Not very likely and I doubt most courts would allow existing marriages to be annulled by such changes in the law to begin with.

I don't ascribe any meaning at all to whether you doubt it or not. The Republicans have a history of targeted discrimination against the LGBT community, and they also have a history of using the Supreme Court as a political tool to bring about the regressive social agendas they have.

 

[tstorm823]

Lyndon Johnson broke America.

 

[Kwak]

Their navy is still mostly littoral

Thanks, you made me learn a new word.