So if Iran goes full monty and China invades Taiwan while Russia is grinding down its population on the Ukrainian front, we’d have WW3 on our hands I reckon.
That war is already underway, we just won’t be calling it that until after…
We won’t be calling it that until the US has a draft.
Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There’s a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that’s slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it’d likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
Yes the US tries to make soldiers the operators of weaponry, not the weapons themselves as in earlier times. Treasure spent on weaponry stokes the military industrial complex. Benefits to dead veterans families, not so much. Also civilian deaths undermine public support for whatever bullshit they are doing.
Also, spending money on a weapon is money that goes to a shareholder. Spending money on training doesn’t.
The war in Ukraine is a drafted/conscripted army versus a drafted/conscripted army. They are (to varying degrees) led and bolstered by volunteer career soldiers, but the vast majority of the boots on the ground have little to no experience.
In times of “peace”, drafts and compulsory service are largely pointless. You are mostly just increasing churn and ensuring that accumulated knowledge is lost. And your “peaceful operations” likely have a small enough footprint that you can make do with volunteers.
Against a near-peer or even just a conscript army with sheer numbers? You need to increase the amount of cannon fodder. And just the number of guns that can do the “easy” stuff while you rely on the highly trained soldiers to do the “hard” stuff.
When World War 3 finally kicks off (… and assuming it isn’t over in the time it takes an ICBM to fly halfway around the planet): I don’t know if “civilized” nations will actually activate a draft because it will lead to mass unrest. But I am also not sure if they’ll have a choice.
And just as a counter argument to weapons being increasingly high tech with a focus on skilled use: The US Military’s M5 is a good yellow flag. It is specifically designed with multiple ammunition types with the higher power round significantly degrading the life of the weapon and expected to only be issued for near peer conflicts. But that also speaks to the lessons learned from Ukraine and similar conflicts where… when the war really kicks off, you don’t have to worry about your weapons or soldiers lasting years. They will be damaged and killed in battles and need to be replaced.
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
It’s a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I’m sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don’t win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they’re playing by other people’s rules. Europe and the West won’t provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won’t give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It’s trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it’ll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It’s not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren’t going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
So, because some guy in the 40s had a pithy remark, a war that shows strong indications of playing out similar to WW1 and the Eastern Front of WW2 against similarly armed foes is not at all representative of future wars?
Also, unless we are willing to completely raze cities (both captured friendly and enemy), there will always be some form of “trench warfare”. That is what we saw in Fallujah and are seeing in Ukraine. It is just that, rather than run from one trench line to the other, it is pushing from a treeline into a city or from one block to another. And bombardments are only viable while you have munitions and/or air superiority. Both of which are limited resources as wars continue… which we are seeing in Ukraine.
Because of external factors, Ukraine is on a very “weird” time table. But everything that is happening is consistent with a prolonged war. Even the US only has so many stockpiled resources and can only make so many new bombs and vehicles at a time. Especially if supply lines are fucked and the entire world is scrambling to build their own.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn’t have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we’ll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There’s a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It’s called the power of decision. It’s not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It’s about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
It’s not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
Sure. Stuxnet was practically proof of concept.
When ww3 starts I hope I’m on the ice cream boat
Not really a world war until 10 countries are actively involved with 2 of them USA and China.
Right now usa is passive and china is not involved.
We’re in the lend and lease phase right now
I could see it being called a proxy world war. There’s enough concentration of where support is coming from.
I think that’s just called a Cold War. We didn’t invade Vietnam because we actually give a shit about Vietnamese people, it was a proxy war with the USSR
That and they were the major exporter of opium at the time.
Don’t forget the middle east
Was that not covered by “if Iran goes full monty?”
I am sorry, I obviously can’t read properly
Idk, there is more middle east than just Iran
Yes, like Yemen or Palestine or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan? They have interests and influence outside their own country, to varying degrees.
Where in the world is Iran located?
I am sorry, I can’t read
Great what a time to be alive! /s
nah because no country is allowed to be a part of the russo-ukranian war as ukraine is neutral.
Well not so quiet anymore
It was never meant to be covert. That doesn’t work as a deterrent. The headline means quiet as in not announced, not as In nobody knows.
Like, if you quietly left a party. It just means you didn’t say goodbye, it does not mean that you’re still hiding in the building.
Oh but I DO hide in the building after I “quietly” leave. Then I just like sit at the breakfast table in my “borrowed” jammies and ask what’s for breakfast as my gracious host rounds the corner in the morning
Ah, that explains your confusion.
If anything, it’s the exact opposite of covert. Taiwan has been unwisely hollowing out their military for the past two decades. These recent expenditures—not matched by corresponding manpower increases—are meant to broadcast that everything’s fine, pay no attention to the problems underneath.
China has also reduced its military manpower. Both are going for quality over quantity.
Looking at Russia bungling their little adventure in Ukraine, maybe quantity alone doesn’t seem like the best approach.
Is there any active or potential war the US isn’t paying for?
The US is paying because it needs Taiwan. If Taiwan didn’t have value for the US, it would have been overrun by China a decade ago
israel and ukraine as well. it’s no coincidence that right next to a powerful country (or, in israel’s case, a bloc of countries) that the US is unfriendly with there is a client state whose entire existence depends on Western funding.
It’s not so much that the US needs Taiwan, Ukraine or Israel, it’s that they oppose China, Russian and the middle east.
Dosen’t the US need Taiwan for silicon manufacturing?
The bulk of the US economy is based on taking money from working people and then consolidating it to billionaires that run defense corporations. So “paying for” it’s basically just an engine for making rich Americans more rich.
If China invades Taiwan our entire economy will come to a screeching halt. Hence why America is interested.
If China wanted to invade, idk, Thailand, we’d just kind of shrug and say “Hey, don’t do that.”
Are there any it hasn’t?
kind of /s
Yes. Syria,
Yemen, Libya.Yemen: US funded, Saudi Led Anti-Houthi Rebels in Yemen.
The Saudis fighting with Hezbollah.Wait I think we did sell weapons to the Saudis lol. The conflicts in and around Turkey. Congress has [blocked arms deals to Turkey](blocked arms deals to Turkey), but Biden has tried to make it happen. We are arming Ukraine, but not arming other countries in the former Soviet bloc that would probably enjoy more independence from Russia right now. We’re not arming Africa which aims to stop piracy, stop foreign boats from dragnetting their shores, and has some internal conflicts with governments and insurgents. We aren’t arming Mexico to stop the drug cartels. (Although US citizens frequently arm the cartels).And don’t worry, Europe has arms to replace now thanks to the Ukraine-Russia war. US Plans to Backfill the Donated Arms.
Yeah you can pretty much look up “US sends weapons to X” and get a positive result that we have indeed. We are also actively stopping Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Russia from arming more rebels whenever we can. US siezes Iranian Ammo, Sends to Ukraine.
Well, all those General Dynamics and Raytheon shareholders deserve maximum return on their investments, according to St. Friedman.
Removed by mod
Removed, rule 4, racially loaded language.
Well Taiwan can either go with the US or China. They’ve been wanting to stay independent from China for a while now so I don’t think it’s much of a surprise.
Almost all countries other than USA, Russia, and China have to pick a side.
I mean Russia is pretty close to needing to pick a side.
Well, their economy isn’t collapsing any time soon. And they managed to destroy modern military systems supplied by NATO.
Hasn’t their economy already shrunk by 5% since the war began?
Seems like they’re going to become a vassal state of China.
I’ve been saying for the last couple of months that Xi is in a perfect position to reclaim the Vladivostok oblast. The native population is over 40% Han, not just Chinese, the type of Chinese the CCP gives a shit about. He could easily appear strong internally, and reclaim former Chinese territory that the Russians invaded in 1901, under the excuse of “a special military operation to defend the ethnic Chinese people in the region.” I seriously doubt that any other country other than Russia would even bat an eye, and Russia would be impotent to defend itself.
This would also give China a port that is outside of the first chain of islands that the US has set up
China been dreaming of this for decades.
Yeah but nukes.
China probably has more working nukes than Russia. Maintenance hasn’t been their strong suit, making them a liability. I wouldn’t be surprised if 9/10 aren’t working, or will malfunction on launch, causing Russia to nuke themselves, and the best part is they don’t even know which ones actually got maintained.
He’s going to have to do something, they’re going to have their own economic issues to deal with…
Their gdp is production of weapons right now. After they lose no one is going to want these weapons and they have been produced for the trash.
My point is it’s not real growth.
I mean yeah, but the EU is also an available Option
When it comes to military, EU is basically NATO which is led by USA.
Europe could stand against Russia without American support. probably not China though. china couldn’t attack any American aligned state without facing humiliation though
So US then?
It is, but I wouldn’t count on our potential to wage an effective modern war in functional cooperation with the many countries in the EU. Especially when it is a war taking place out of Europe and not a defensive action.
A militaristic endeavor would surely be held up and manipulated by opposing countries within the alliance, just like it is now with economic decisions.
I’m highly biased but that seems like an easy choice, geography notwithstanding.
Good. Even if nobody likes 'murica, their weapons work well enough to deter China from doing something stupid.
Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was China arming i.e. Panama. How would you feel then?
(Because the USA has done a lot of "something stupid"s as well).
Edit: Folks, you can analyze the bigger picture without being a tankie. It’s unfortunate that so many ex-Redditors would rather block and report any display of critical thought
deleted by creator
.ml means ‘Marxist-Leninist’. From their about page:
“In particular, I would like to see someone (or a group of people) create a mainstream, or liberal instance. That should help to avoid further drama, and avoid attempts to turn lemmy.ml into something that it is not.”
But really, it’s Mali. But they could have set it up that way for the Marxist Left thing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ml#:~:text=ml is the Internet country,domain (ccTLD) for Mali.
Yeah that’s what I mean. Same as .dj is Djibouti, but people use it for music; or .mu (Mauritius) or .am / .fm (Armenia/Federated States of Micronesia); .io (Indian Ocean Territory) for tech (from Input/Output); .gg (Guernsey) for gaming or gambling; or .tv (Tuvalu) for Television.
As an American who knows how evil our government is, I would be like “good for panama but also China is probably not doing this out of justice and freedom”
Neither is the US. We’re doing it because Taiwan is a strategic ally
If you’re comparing China/Taiwan circumstances to USA/Panama I’m sorry but I cannot call that a critical thought. The only similarity is proximity.
That’s fine! We should not invade Panama. I don’t think the US is currently planning on it, but after the last 20 years I’m pretty sure most citizens would be fucking glad for any excuse for our military to think twice before invading a foreign country.
The one other one is a democracy, despite being a flawed one. The other, an unabashedly totalitarian state. And before any CCP apologists comments and nevermind what the domestic Chinese think, ask South Korea, Japan and South East Asia what they think of the Chinese Communist Party claiming the entirety of South China Sea and sending armed merchant vessels and the Chinese navy bullying other Asian fishermen in the region. Not to excuse American imperialism, but it’s clear which is the better option for many.
ask South Korea
너 지금 한국에 사는 사람한테 답하는 거야…
Do you speak on behalf the population of South Korea?
No, but I thought it was funny someone likely from the West tried to use that argument when I suggested the idea of a weapon deployment next door might make you uneasy
Philippines in the 1990s have elected to kick out the Americans from their bases in the country. Back then, there was strong nationalist sentiment against American troops being stationed. Fast forward to twenty years later, many Filipinos have been blaming the past government with hindsight that they should have let the Americans stay because China took the opportunity to camp in an shoal within the Philippines’ legally recognised maritime borders. If the Americans had remained, China would not have been so bold to violate other country’s borders.
That’s the problem with realpolitik. If it’s not one country or entity, another would prey on the weak. That’s might be a poor analogy considering what I would say next but the point stands. And the American bases, it’s not like US unilaterally set up bases in hundreds of locations across the world. There is given permission by these countries hosting military forces. Of course, nation states still being tribalistic and only after their own interests, others feel it is an affront to see such bases next door. Even the nuclear missiles about to be set up in Cuba in the 1960s, Cuba invited the Soviet Union to do so, not that the Soviet Union unilaterally decided to set up the nukes in the island. Cuba and Soviet Union have mutual interest. The former needs a deterrent to prevent another American inteference, while the latter wants leverage on the US to be convinced remove the missiles from Turkey.
Why don’t we ask South America, the Middle East, and Vietnam what they think about the US?
but it’s clear which is the better option for many
… American tax dollars are at this moment funding the genocide of Palestinians.
EDIT to add: I should clarify I’m no CCP apologist, nor do I uplift China as an example of what we should strive for. But I also really get tired of seeing America put on a pedestal. America was built on genocide, slavery, and exploitation, I don’t see how it should ever be an example of how to do things better.
Our democracy also isn’t actual democracy. By definition, a democracy must represent the will of the people. Ours does not. It is already a failed democracy, and has been for my entire life. America also produces more propaganda than any other country. Do we have more personal freedoms in many areas than people in China? Absolutely. Are there many areas throughout society where I think America has pushed the world forward and made it a better place? Absolutely.
But I’m getting really sick of seeing America compared to China just to say “we’re better”.
Funny you should ask
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-key-ally/
Yet four decades after the controversial war, the Vietnamese public sees the United States as a helpful ally and even embraces some of the core tenets of capitalism.
Today, the Vietnamese view the U.S. in a positive light. About three-quarters of Vietnamese (76%) expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. More highly educated people (89%) gave the U.S. especially high marks. Young people ages 18-29 were particularly affirmative (89%), but the U.S. is seen positively even by those who are old enough to have lived through the Vietnam War. Among those ages 50 and older, more than six-in-ten rated the U.S. favorably.
Yeah I shouldn’t have used Vietnam as an example bc I am aware that they’re somehow largely favorable to the US still, but the lasting effects of US imperialism on the population there is what I was really trying to get at.
Past atrocities does not justify today’s actions by another at the present time. US hasn’t been meddling Latin America since the cold war. In Asia Pacific, US isn’t the one who is bullying Japan, South Korea and SE Asia. And funny you mentioned Vietnam, as someone already said that Vietnam view US favourably in spite of history, the former actually dislike China more than the US. Vietnam has a much longer historical animosity with China than the with the US. At present, US and Vietnam have mutual interests in containing China.
Cuba and Venezuela are both in Latino America. And both have being targeted by the US as “cold” enemies.
Past atrocities does not justify today’s actions by another at the present time.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that holding America up as a standard and saying that we’re somehow better is hypocritical and dangerous because it helps to justify/overlook shit like what’s happening in Palestine rn, and I’m sick of the general mindset exactly because it has helped lead to the ignorance and complacency we see with a genocide that is fueled largely by American desire to retain influence in that region for capitalistic purposes, with no regard for human rights.
Vietnam has a much longer historical animosity with China than the with the US.
I mean yeah no shit, they’ve been at it for thousands of years lmao.
And, as I’ve said elsewhere I was more getting at the human rights atrocities perpetrated by the US which still have great effect on Vietnam.
I’m in no way trying to justify anything. Again, I’m just saying I’m sick of seeing people hold the US up as “hey look we’re better” because I really don’t know that we are. We care about human rights at home, to an extent, but we don’t give af who that affects in other parts of the world. Is that really better than China pretending to care about it’s citizens with communism while abusing their human rights and exercising insane governmental control over their lives?
The US has been and continues to be the direct and indirect perpetrator of a lot of evils, and the more I learn about these things, the more I dislike seeing America characterized as a standard of morality, because it directly reflects propaganda which has allowed for many of these atrocities to happen.
No one is holding US as the gold standard. But with the present dog-eat-dog realpolitik, the US is seen as the “least of all evils”. Last time I checked, a survey carried out across the world said most still prefer the US than China or Russia. In my opinion, it’s better to have a multipolar world to stop the current set up humanity is having right now.
Greetings from Hanoi. The Vietnamese in general view the USA quite favorably. Much more so than they feel about China which is regularly killing their fishermen and destroying VN oil and mineral development facilities. The 1000 years of Chinese occupation seems to have also left a bit of a bad taste.
Taiwan is a full democracy, not a flawed one. At least according to the widely respected Economist Democracy Index.
Taiwan is more democratic than Canada and Germany. And a lot more than the US, but that’s not surprising.
Countries helping arm one another is good. Every country should have the capacity to defend itself. My country got steamrolled during WWII because we had few and outdated wapens
Gives me Cuban Missile Crisis vibes.
I’m not as happy that the US sells arms, but I’m convinced by the geopolitical climate that arming Ukraine and now I might add arming Taiwan is better for the world than worse. Refilling Israel’s Iron Dome is probably a good idea too, though we are yet to see what the US sends and how defensive or offensive those weapons we send are.
There might be better comparisons though in the weird chess games we played in the middle east with Russia. They armed some insurgents, we armed some insurgents, etc. Afghanistan was a disaster for Russia too, though it was worse for us.
So quietly that no one knows about it
I realize that you think you are being clever, but actually that’s precisely the point. They want the CCP to know about it otherwise it’s pointless as a deterrent.
I understand it entirely. It’s posturing.
They seem to be mocking this journalist, not the US.
Quietly? They have been doing so for at least 40 years. Everybody knew and knows.
It’s in the BBC ffs how quiet can it be?
Give them a bunch of nukes and biological weapons and after they arrive send a message to the PRC
“Just a fyi, we sent them a 100 but they only received 80. Be a real shame if Taiwanese operators had planted them in randomly selected cities on the mainland.”
It will be hilarious way to end the world.
Aaaand… Música, maestro!
The ultimate end of the world song. Just as the canisters release Covid-20 through 30 plus airbourne HIV
Covid-20 would mean it started in 2020.
Guaranteed that poster thinks they are very perceptive and see through the all the bs.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
There’s a theory that Taiwan could achieve mass destruction with just regular cruise missiles, no need for actual WMDs.
The destruction of Three Gorges Dam would kill millions of people from the resulting flood. Be a tough target and air defense would be a nightmare, but it is still within Taiwan’s cruise missile range.
There’s been no acknowledgement ever of this plan, but it’s pretty obvious.
deleted by creator
BBC found out about it. It aint that quiet.
…and Israel, for that matter.
At least Taiwan isn’t an apartheid state.
How is Israel an apartheid state? Don’t they have an active Arab population?
Thanks for the article. I’ll have to read this later. It looks like it answers all my questions on that topic.
I mean, yeah, why wouldn’t they?
Should we just let China carpetbomb Taiwan instead?
And act just like Israel?
The US is wrong to support Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
The US is right to help Taiwan defend itself against assimilation by the CCP.
Genocide and imperialism are bad. Supporting the victims of them to defend themselves is good. Not so hard to understand, is it?
If China had the chance, they would love to act like Israel is acting towards palestinians, yes.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
When US President Joe Biden recently signed off on a $80m grant to Taiwan for the purchase of American military equipment, China said it “deplores and opposes” what Washington had done.
It is sending a clear message of strategic clarity to Beijing that we stand together," says Wang Ting-yu, a ruling party legislator with close ties to Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, and to US Congressional chiefs.
He says the $80m is the tip of what could be a very large iceberg, and notes that in July President Biden used discretionary powers to approve the sale of military services and equipment worth $500m to Taiwan.
But Dr Lai says it’s possible to make educated guesses: Javelin and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles - highly effective weapons that forces can learn to use quickly.
A war-gaming exercise conducted by a think-tank last year found that in a conflict with China, Taiwan’s navy and air force would be wiped out in the first 96 hours of battle.
The focus will switch to ground troops, infantry and artillery - repelling an invasion on the beaches and, if necessary, fighting the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the towns and cities, and from bases deep in the island’s jungle-covered mountains.
The original article contains 1,687 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 88%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Let’s hope this is enough of a deterrent…
The best weapons are ones that make it so you never need to use them.
So the US is funding Taiwan, Ukraine, and [checks notes] …Israel? Makes perfect sense to me
Proxies against Russia, Iran and China.
Iran feels like just Russia Proxy with an extra step tbh.
These days it’s more the other way around, Russia has gotten so weak Iran is propping up Russia to cause mischief and take attention away from Iran and where their other proxies are playing.
deleted by creator
Iran is more of a man-on-the-side proxy for Russia imo.
