511–520 of 538 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tagline "objective, nonpartisan and insightful" on 'World Affairs' really brings it home. The Chinese government obviously has its own propaganda, but being anti-China is objective and nonpartisan in the US. It's not taking sides, it's just the natural state of affairs, the entire media thinks so, both kinds of it.
> both kinds of it. Country and Western.
I really wish the US and Europe would get *lls and punish China for breaking the treaty with Hong Kong and the UK
I'm sure with a bit of reflection you can see the absolute irony of what you are asking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not what you're asking for but here is a perfect example of the misinformation that is spread by the CCP https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massac...
The tagline "objective, nonpartisan and insightful" on 'World Affairs' really brings it home. The Chinese government obviously has its own propaganda, but being anti-China is objective and nonpartisan in the US. It's not taking sides, it's just the natural state of affairs, the entire media thinks so, both kinds of it.
No, pretty much all American propaganda mills that are not formally associated with a political party claim to be “objective and nonpartisan” (the latter is truly universal, the former or a close synonym quite common). It doesn't matter if the viewpoint being pushed is one orthogonal to the party divide, common to the major factions of both parties, or extremely partisan in its appeal, or even outside of the mainstream of either party. The label is, itself, propaganda (though so routine and formulaic and widely recognized that it only has an impact on the most unaware.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A drone could not penetrate a defensive line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes. However, a destroyer costs $870 million. I can build a drone for around $870 which has decent range, and sufficient firepower to do real damage if attacking with sufficient precision (e.g. placing a small explosive charge directly within a barrel). That means I can launch a million drones for the cost of one destroyer. I'm pretty s…
CRAM bullets cost cheaper than your drone, and those CRAMs are on each Destroyer. I think our cruisers have 2 CRAMs on them (but I forget exactly) These CRAMs can aim-bot and destroy subsonic cruise missiles (500mph), and even supersonic cruise missiles (1000mph). That's why China has spent billions developing hypersonic missiles (2500+mph) to dodge our CRAMs and missile defenses. How fast is your drone flying? Does…
Looking at the video, it looks like the C-RAM system is shooting perhaps dozens of rounds per second. Shooting down a million drones would take many hours of continuous shooting, assuming every bullet hit, which it wouldn't.
And a Patriot missile is $2-3 million.
I think the future of warfare is likely to be cheap, small, but smart and precision.
* A small drone flies into a gun barrel and explodes.
* A small drone flies into a jet air intake, and explodes, spraying material designed to damage the engine as it passes through
* A small drone deposits a chemical weapon in a ship's HVAC intake
* A small drone sprays corrosive paint on a camera, on a jet window, other surface we look through
* A small drone launches a single bullet to kill a mechanic
... and so on.
I think a lot of this goes like rock-paper-scissors, where a million $1000 drones overwhelms a $1 billion ship. On the other hand, a hundred thousand $10,000 drones could probably make quick work of a million $1000 drones. And so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tagline "objective, nonpartisan and insightful" on 'World Affairs' really brings it home. The Chinese government obviously has its own propaganda, but being anti-China is objective and nonpartisan in the US. It's not taking sides, it's just the natural state of affairs, the entire media thinks so, both kinds of it.
> but being anti-China is objective and nonpartisan in the US No, pretty much all American propaganda mills that are not formally associated with a political party claim to be “objective and nonpartisan” (the latter is truly universal, the former or a close synonym quite common). It doesn't matter if the viewpoint being pushed is one orthogonal to the party divide, common to the major factions of both parties, or ext…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CRAM bullets cost cheaper than your drone, and those CRAMs are on each Destroyer. I think our cruisers have 2 CRAMs on them (but I forget exactly) These CRAMs can aim-bot and destroy subsonic cruise missiles (500mph), and even supersonic cruise missiles (1000mph). That's why China has spent billions developing hypersonic missiles (2500+mph) to dodge our CRAMs and missile defenses. How fast is your drone flying? Does…
We're talking about Taiwan. China sets them up in the fields in a few of the rural communities near Xiamen. They simultaneously lift off from the fields. They fly at ~25mph. They take perhaps three hours to clear the water between Taiwan and China. There's a million of them. They're slow, but fairly agile. Looking at the video, it looks like the C-RAM system is shooting perhaps dozens of rounds per second. Shooting d…
You know that US Warships run at 35mph to 50mph over water, right? You literally can't hit a warship at that speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On 1, let's not pretend that short term destruction necessarily leads to long term prosperity. We've "won" most of our recent wars, long term prosperity was not the result. On 2, there is no conventional war with a nuclear power.
> there is no conventional war with a nuclear power. True. But maybe there can be a purely conventional war between two nuclear powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the most recent numbers, they produced just under 4 million barrels a day domestically. Oil production isn't something where you can just triple the output over a few months. China has been working to expand their internal production for a while, and it takes billions of dollars and years to do so: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2019/06/06/china-is-bett...
They don't need to triple it in months. Increasing domestic supply by 50%, increasing Russian oil imports from 1.7 mbd to 3mbd. Meanwhile, China has reserves for 100 days of imports. In the long term domestic and Russian production will catch up fully.
And even if Russia repudiated every other contract they have in Asia, it doesn't look like they have the pipeline capacity to get that much oil to China, even if the cross border capacity for China to import it existed. So it would have to come on tankers, which would generate some interesting geopolitical brinkmanship.
That's assuming things don't escalate far beyond sanctions or a possible blockade. The risk with a naval confrontation is that it's very easy to quickly generate casualties that would make backing down politically suicidal. Even just a few of the smaller ships getting sunk means hundreds of dead sailors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its sad. when Sun Yat-sen the father of modern China take on the Qing dynasty. Hong Kong was the base. It wasn't part of China and a lot of Chinese who is educated under the British rule understand what Sun try to achieve. a modern and free country. Hong Kong have been a base for a lot of progressive Chinese. Now that Hong Kong is fully back into China and the 50 years of no changes (for Hong Kong) promised by Deng X…
Some think that if the US extended their protection to Taiwan, Beijing would not attempt to take Taiwan. Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know what you mean. 9/11 resulted in two major wars and that was a non-state actor. As I said elsewhere: In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those. Or more starkly: The US lost both those wars and the US population is sick of it. If China sank a couple of US ships, I'm sure the US wo…
The US was not run out of Iraq by Iran, not was it run out of Syria by Russia. That's a total misrepresentation of the situation. The US lost the political will to stay in Afghanistan. It wasn't actually that difficult or costly, just not worth it. There was no appetite for war after Vietnam, and yet Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan all happened. If China invaded Taiwan, then the 'appetite for war would change' and if…
America was run out off Syria by Russia. There was lots of other things going on too, but Russia got a deep water port in the Mediterranean - something that both the British and American empires tried to stop for hundreds of years - before the Crimean war.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/08/after-five-years-of-fig...
https://www.news18.com/news/opinion/after-10-years-of-syrian...
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-applauds-russia-vic...
I mean Turkish forces shelled a US post in Syria at one point and laughed about it. That's how worried the rest of the world is about US appetite for war.
https://www.militarytimes.com/2019/10/13/us-troops-believe-t...
Iran has run America out of Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/18/leaked-cables-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/18/leaked-cables-...
Where was any appetite to do anything about China's actions in HK?