2019 American Political Scene

[astralis]

What is it that is preventing everybody from just getting straight to the point on nuclear arms? The only possible reason has to be because of the arrogance of the military mindset.

Nuclear weapons, the only really effective WMD, are strictly intended as a defensive deterrent. It's quite ridiculous to contemplate China standing up to the US in a war that goes nuclear, but the US or China are both prohibited from using nukes because of the counter strike. In the case of these two, the US will never have the confidence to rule out China getting a few through to the US.

Excepting in a case of rationality not being the deciding factor, and that is somewhat possible when a psychopath is at the helm. With a war hungry hawk by his side in Bolton.

Could it be that this discussion is still very alive and wasting everybody's time because of Trump?

i am not sure what the "arrogance of the military mindset" is.

the military must consider these scenarios because that is what any competent military is tasked to do. think the unthinkable.

every major country with nukes has warplans that involve the use of nukes. in fact, Russian theory on nuclear use differs from the US. Russia has been rapidly developing "low-yield tactical nuclear weapons" over the last decade, because their theory of victory is "escalate to de-escalate". they know they are out-classed conventionally, so they believe in quick escalation to include use of low-yield nuclear weapons to deter the US/NATO from intervention, say in the Baltics.

[montgomery]

i am not sure what the "arrogance of the military mindset" is.

It's my best guess on why the Colonel has been so rude and arrogant toward me for stating my opinions in a polite way. My opinion isn't cast in stone so I'm open to a better explanation. His suggestion of ignorance on my part won't do.

the military must consider these scenarios because that is what any competent military is tasked to do. think the unthinkable.

I can't disagree with any kind of credibility that's based on my personal knowledge of the military.

every major country with nukes has warplans that involve the use of nukes. in fact, Russian theory on nuclear use differs from the US. Russia has been rapidly developing "low-yield tactical nuclear weapons" over the last decade, because their theory of victory is "escalate to de-escalate". they know they are out-classed conventionally, so they believe in quick escalation to include use of low-yield nuclear weapons to deter the US/NATO from intervention, say in the Baltics.

My own understanding of what you say about Russia is that it's quite true. Russia is outclassed on the level of conventional warfare. And China isn't even in the same picture.

You've introduced the theory of limited use of nuclear weapons on a tactical scale. That could be a topic worth exploring further.

[Mihais]

''How on earth do the Chinese think of taking on the USN, for example, if they can't match nukes for nukes. I guess, what the Chinese are doing from time to time w.r.t the US is plain frothing from the mouth. The Chinese have neither the capacity or the capability to do jackshit to the US military. It's just propaganda for the subjects.''

Not quite.Nukes prevent an immediate catastrophic defeat.Meaning that nukes prevent enemy troops marching through your capital and sending half the population to re-education camp after they shoot the other half.Nukes don't prevent loss of influence,loss of trade,loss of diplomatic partners,loss of national will to keep the country going etc...
US and China aren't fighting directly for their life.They're fighting for the 1st place in the world.The loser goes to the dustbin in a generation,by internal chaos caused by the loss.So yes,theoretically,a US-China war can be decided without nukes.

[montgomery]

So yes,theoretically,a US-China war can be decided without nukes.

ONly up until the point at which one side sees complete loss.

Not all that different than real life experience in which the loser in a fight holds back from playing all his cards until he needs them. The reason why some fist fights can end as a knife or gun fight.

[Oracle]

''How on earth do the Chinese think of taking on the USN, for example, if they can't match nukes for nukes. I guess, what the Chinese are doing from time to time w.r.t the US is plain frothing from the mouth. The Chinese have neither the capacity or the capability to do jackshit to the US military. It's just propaganda for the subjects.''

Not quite.Nukes prevent an immediate catastrophic defeat.Meaning that nukes prevent enemy troops marching through your capital and sending half the population to re-education camp after they shoot the other half.Nukes don't prevent loss of influence,loss of trade,loss of diplomatic partners,loss of national will to keep the country going etc...
US and China aren't fighting directly for their life.They're fighting for the 1st place in the world.The loser goes to the dustbin in a generation,by internal chaos caused by the loss.So yes,theoretically,a US-China war can be decided without nukes.

I was talking in general about the things I read in Chinese media. Say for example, China needs to be ready for war, if needed force would be used to unite Taiwan etc. That is psychological, but aimed at which country? Obviously the US. It's more like the weak party screaming that they have a gun and will use it if needed, while the opposition has megaton bombs.

Btw, this US-China rivalry will play out in Af-Pak mainly?

[Officer of Engineers]

Again, how about you educating yourself so you stop showing your ignorance.

https://warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_101.pdf
https://warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_102.pdf
https://warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_103.pdf

Understand the basics BEFORE you jump in on the more advance topics.

MAD is a MILITARY CONCEPT, not a Stanely Kubrick tagline. You have absolutely ZERO UNDERSTANDING OF IT. Just spouting MAD is MAD means dick all in this forum.

Clearly enough to say that the Chinese nuclear arsenal is meant for deterrence and deterrence only. When it comes to a choice of use them or lose them, the Chinese will ALWAYS choose to lose them. However, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT until you have a firm grasp of the basics which you don't. For the Chinese and the Indians, DETERRENCE IS NOT WARFIGHTING.

Edit: There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. I know what the Russians are saying but not a single one of their exercises practise escalate to de-escalate. They all show massive nuclear release even on the tactical level. Fight as you train. Train as you fight. When one flies, they all fly.

The take away from this is Escalate to De-escalate is not meant for NATO but rather the Chinese who is reaching somewhat of conventional parity with the Russian Far East. We will NOT De-escalate. The Chinese, however, have no means to escalate in nuclear war.

[Mihais]

I was talking in general about the things I read in Chinese media. Say for example, China needs to be ready for war, if needed force would be used to unite Taiwan etc. That is psychological, but aimed at which country? Obviously the US. It's more like the weak party screaming that they have a gun and will use it if needed, while the opposition has megaton bombs.

Btw, this US-China rivalry will play out in Af-Pak mainly?

Maybe.But is more likely aimed at the internal audience.My point was that the stakes are high and usually such games come to the end.Even if it takes generations.
The US -China rivalry will play out everywhere.The PAcific is the obvious theater.But China is also trying to build a land infrastructure that will connect it to its markets and raw materials suppliers.The US WILL create chaos along these routes.Or wil use the existing chaos,whic is the more likely scenario,since there are few excuses needed for a good fight.The Chinese need law and order,of course one favourable to them.And Chinese law,IMO,sucks bigly.But some may like it.It will be the same as the old Cold War,only nastier.

So yes,Af-Pak,but this is a limitation.Say China wins this area and it's under its thumb 100%.No big deal,there is still plenty to go until you reach the ME oil and Africa.

[DOR]

It's my best guess on why the Colonel has been so rude and arrogant toward me for stating my opinions in a polite way. My opinion isn't cast in stone so I'm open to a better explanation. His suggestion of ignorance on my part won't do.

I can't disagree with any kind of credibility that's based on my personal knowledge of the military.

Don't take it personally; he's rude and arrogant to everyone who tries to sound like they have some idea about something he's been doing all his adult life.
And, don't be ashamed of ignorance: it is a lack of information, not a failure of character.

HOWEVER, do show some respect and try to back up your arguments with facts and citations.

[montgomery]

Don't take it personally; he's rude and arrogant to everyone who tries to sound like they have some idea about something he's been doing all his adult life.
And, don't be ashamed of ignorance: it is a lack of information, not a failure of character.

HOWEVER, do show some respect and try to back up your arguments with facts and citations.

Yeah that. It's pretty much at odds with what I've been doing for much of my adult life, but I'm not here to promote my own credentials.

Did you note that Art Laffer and Stephen Moore have wrote a new book bout Trump. Those two are both big names in VooDoo economics. I haven't heard yet whether that sort of nonsense turns your crank for you?

[DOR]

Yeah that.

Did you note that Art Laffer and Stephen Moore have wrote a new book bout Trump. Those two are both big names in VooDoo economics. I haven't heard yet whether that sort of nonsense turns your crank for you?

Here’s a Fed paper that points out that the Phillips Curve no longer works (particularly Figure 5).
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publ...ation-dynamics

As for the Laffer Curve, Ronald Reagan proved that one to be utter nonsense. GHW Bush confirmed it, and Dubious (“W”) showed The Trumpet how to blow out the budget beyond belief.

[FORMBY]

Trump is the best president the U.S. has had in 40 years so they may just as well keep him. I didn't say he was good but he's the best they've had since Carter went home.

[Oracle]

Maybe.But is more likely aimed at the internal audience.My point was that the stakes are high and usually such games come to the end.Even if it takes generations.
The US -China rivalry will play out everywhere.The PAcific is the obvious theater.But China is also trying to build a land infrastructure that will connect it to its markets and raw materials suppliers.The US WILL create chaos along these routes.Or wil use the existing chaos,whic is the more likely scenario,since there are few excuses needed for a good fight.The Chinese need law and order,of course one favourable to them.And Chinese law,IMO,sucks bigly.But some may like it.It will be the same as the old Cold War,only nastier.

So yes,Af-Pak,but this is a limitation.Say China wins this area and it's under its thumb 100%.No big deal,there is still plenty to go until you reach the ME oil and Africa.

Replied here.

[montgomery]

As for the Laffer Curve, Ronald Reagan proved that one to be utter nonsense. GHW Bush confirmed it, and Dubious (“W”) showed The Trumpet how to blow out the budget beyond belief.

I agree totally. And the point that seemed to have gone over your head is that the book is about Trump and his attempts to revive trickle down economics. You've served my purpose by letting me know where your head is on the topic.

[montgomery]

Replied here.

China is said to have placed 120 soldiers in Venezuela, along with tons of humanitarian and military aid. China denies it. The story can be found at RT.com

[DOR]

Trump is the best president the U.S. has had in 40 years so they may just as well keep him. I didn't say he was good but he's the best they've had since Carter went home.

Jimmy Carter is a highly intelligent, thoughtful, caring Christian man, and the best former president the US has ever had.
The Trumpet is the opposite of all of that, and the sooner he is a former president the better.