Going to war with your biggest customers doesn't seem like good business sense. Its more likely that they will use the money they earned to build Africa in their image and under their control. The smaller nations of Asia will come under their sphere of influence. They'll get all the markets and resources they need without firing a shot under their flag, but they will profit by selling arms to nations doing the fighting.
China and war
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
Soldato
Drones can be hacked, signal block, etc.
Smart future strategy should focus on cyber warfare as I mentioned earlier.
Smart future strategy should focus on cyber warfare as I mentioned earlier.
Soldato
The images of that skirmish were insane.
China won't need to beat the west militarily, our youth are brainwashed into hating everything our countries stand for and so we will likely just be transformed from within, we probably won't even notice it. I mean we have already embraced Communist style censorship, sending people to digital gulag's, getting people sacked for wrong think, we have the media pushing outright propaganda and half the country see nothing wrong and even defend it all... Brexit will either lead to liberation and a rolling back of government and corporate power or a Communist takeover after they have brought the country to crisis. Choose wisely.
In terms of vulnerability to hacking - for a properly setup military drone you can actually make them quite robust against it via hardwired offline uploads immediately before critical [combat] use of portions of the operating system and authentication codes (for one time command use) making it almost if not impossible to hack them within a mission timeline assuming the core OS/firmware doesn't have any gaping security issues.
Signal blocking is a more complex one. Ultimately though we have the capability to detect and track drones very effectively even in large numbers and the ability to adapt existing technology to hard counter even significant size swarms using a mixture of missiles and CRAM type systems.
Cyber warfare definitely is something we need to make sure we don't drop the ball on but ultimately it doesn't trump physical warfare if it ever comes to it.
Soldato
But if you look at history this doesn’t seem to be the case. Middle East wars, Vietnam, Korea...
All the gear and no idea springs to mind.
Vietnam was winnable ,the public backlash against the bombing campaign ended their hopes in Vietnam.
Middle East they wiped the floor with the conventional side of it
Korea... difficult one but when you are not expecting millions of Chinese to come flowing over the border and the harsh weather combined with fatigue from ww2 ...
There are so many factors and debates when it comes to that war. Fatigue from WW2 seems to have produced some timidity when it came to the numbers game and dealing with stuff like Russian Migs combined with too many US service branches not being on the same page (so things like close air support weren't used to good effect and tanks not committed early enough or in bigger numbers which would have swung the war).
Soldato
But they didn’t win any of them.
if they couldn’t win in Vietnam in nineteen years, sorry but it wasn’t winnable. How much longer would it have taken? Another 19?
You're ignoring the fact that American policy was divided for so long on Vietnam (different Presidents not agreeing, lots of half-heartedness, etc) and American public's opposition kept growing and growing, making policy even harder and more divided. Public opposition to the Vietnam war in America became so strong that when the soldiers returned home they were literally spat on and denied employment - that wasn't because they were seen as losers but because the opposition to the war in general had grown to such levels of vitriol. That said, Vietnam was a pointless war they shouldn't have been involved in at all - the aforementioned public opposition realised that and represented such sentiment.
Basic conditions in Vietnam were similar to when the Japanese fought the Americans on various islands in the Pacific. The reasons the US beat Japan but lost in Vietnam had more to do with politics.
Last edited:
If they went unrestricted they could have,read about how close to breaking the north with the b-52 raids.
Public opinion forced them to abandon that campaign Hanoi Jane etc.
A war that should never have been.
They obliterated the Iraqi forces.
Korea as discussed.
Soldato
But this is the thing. When you enter a war you don't enter to lose. If you have political problems back home that cause you to lose, thats still a loss.
It's like saying Manchester united lost because their keeper was injured and the replacement let in a Goal.
The US could have won any war, the problem is casualties. To keep civilian casual down you cant just carpet bomb.
Last edited:
Yes the Chinese will be more willing to lose civilians and as a party they can do as they wish, something that the west can't do.
However in military terms only ,there is not a chance in hell for the Chinese military to win.
By saying 'how many years 19?' you are claiming that it was the military alone that couldn't win and ignoring the social/political fallout.
Again, read some literature on the subject.
However in military terms only ,there is not a chance in hell for the Chinese military to win.
By saying 'how many years 19?' you are claiming that it was the military alone that couldn't win and ignoring the social/political fallout.
Again, read some literature on the subject.
If, like me, you're against the Americans having ever been in Vietnam, then those "political problems" (that you insist on ignoring/belittling) were actually a victory for, well, sanity. I'd say defeat/victory was determined not by the military (as you seem to naively think) but rather the MIC vs the will of the public, and the latter eventually won thankfully.
Would you agree that the American war of independence was unwinnable for the British empire?
Like the Dresden carpet bombings?
While fighting on multiple wars and fronts all over the globe at the same time it was not a war that was easily winnable.
But this is the thing. When you enter a war you don't enter to lose. If you have distractions elsewhere that contribute to your loss, that's still a loss.
It's like saying Manchester united lost because their keeper was injured and the replacement let in a goal.
Thing is though you don't always plan to be in a war. Common fallacy around aggression. Sometimes war comes to you - unless you just roll over from the start (and even that doesn't guarantee you won't be victims).
Last edited:
British we’re fighting against France Spain and the Dutch in the Americas.
plus poor leadership lost them the USA. But it allowed the British to focus on the empire.