Geopolitics

[AfonsoAlves]

US has a troubling history as "world police" across the world, i know, but they are still quite welcome in Europe, so got to take it from there.

Europe is trying to build up, but not there yet, so in the meantime, US is still needed here, particulary considering how unhinged Russia has become.

Almost the entirety of the Middle East is dependent on US for security. Saudi Arabia wants a nato style alliance with USA and are even willing to normalise relations with Israel to get that. Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan are all very much dependent, at their own request.

So is most of east Asia and Oceania and south east Asia. Philippines just leased out 6 US bases, Vietnam is becoming ever closer, Indonesia just conducted large naval exercises with joint missions with USN and Japan and Korea don’t need further explaining.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

That's a bit of a naive view of global politics, IMO. There have certainly been more isolationist politicians, but there's no doubt that after WW2 there was and has been a very cleary view that the US should involve themselves in all parts of the world.

I’m talking about now, there was a dumb ‘Murica feck yeah’ sentiment in the 90s and early to mid 00s that rightfully died. The Cold War was a different game entirely

Since the early 10s and the rise of china there has been a real attempt to scale back foreign intervention

 

[Morty_]

Almost the entirety of the Middle East is dependent on US for security. Saudi Arabia wants a nato style alliance with USA and are even willing to normalise relations with Israel to get that. Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan are all very much dependent, at their own request.

So is most of east Asia and Oceania and south east Asia. Philippines just leased out 6 US bases, Vietnam is becoming ever closer, Indonesia just conducted large naval exercises with joint missions with USN and Japan and Korea don’t need further explaining.

On that note, who is the US allies in the asian seas against China, if things gets out of hand at some point? Japan, i presume, does the UK and France have a presence there too?

 

[africanspur]

Almost the entirety of the Middle East is dependent on US for security. Saudi Arabia wants a nato style alliance with USA and are even willing to normalise relations with Israel to get that. Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan are all very much dependent, at their own request.

So is most of east Asia and Oceania and south east Asia. Philippines just leased out 6 US bases, Vietnam is becoming ever closer, Indonesia just conducted large naval exercises with joint missions with USN and Japan and Korea don’t need further explaining.

Worth mentioning, at least in the Middle Eastern context, that essentially all of those countries are autocratic governments and acting against the wishes of their own populations in doing so.

Less relevant of course in East Asia.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

On that note, who is the US allies in the asian seas against China, if things gets out of hand at some point? Japan, i presume, does the UK and France have a presence there too?

You'll need to define "allies" a bit more carefully here.

Philippines are allies for South China Sea related problems.

If Taiwan gets hot, Australia/New Zealand will contribute their Navies (or rather, Navy + a few ships of NZ), Japan will 100% get involved, and dependent on how the first strike goes, there's a high possibility of South Korea becoming involved. France and Britain will send a CSG each to the region. Interestingly, the German navy recently made requirements for a new order of ships that "Must fulfil the requirement of being able to operate in the Eastern Pacific".

 

[The Firestarter]

On that note, who is the US allies in the asian seas against China, if things gets out of hand at some point? Japan, i presume, does the UK and France have a presence there too?

Taiwan, ROK, Philippines?

 

[Morty_]

You'll need to define "allies" a bit more carefully here.

Philippines are allies for South China Sea related problems.

If Taiwan gets hot, Australia/New Zealand will contribute their Navies (or rather, Navy + a few ships of NZ), Japan will 100% get involved, and dependent on how the first strike goes, there's a high possibility of South Korea becoming involved. France and Britain will send a CSG each to the region. Interestingly, the German navy recently made requirements for a new order of ships that "Must fulfil the requirement of being able to operate in the Eastern Pacific".

Thanks, i don't know much about the subject, got to read about it more at some point.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

For additional context re Germany:

https://www.navaltoday.com/2024/01/18/german-navy-unveils-3-priorities-for-2024/

For Vice Admiral Kacck, the Indo-Pacific Deployment is the navy’s major project for 2024. The deployment of a frigate and a task force supplier around the globe for several months is not a normal “training trip in foreign waters”, as the formal term suggests, but a real operation. It will “strengthen Germany’s defense diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific region,” explained Kaack.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

What knowledge do you have on the MIC?

Can you explain your criticisms of the MIC rather than throw off the dude comments about “tail that wags the dog.”

Do you have data and actual citations? Are you even aware of how the relationship between DOD and MIC actually works?

Lots.

I could.

Yes, and yes.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Lots.

I could.

Yes, and yes.

So then you know that

a) The majority of the most profitable items for the big contractors are foreign sales

b) The DoD sets the price per unit/ R&D Price for each project, and the MIC's have to make a bid with a design that has to meet budgets (within the specified contract), so it's not the MIC designing weapons at cost X and the DoD choosing to buy it.

c) That military contractors have all complained the demands of the DoD is maximum output for minimal cost, and that most of the contracts are simply not profitable.

For example, Boeing made a loss in 2023 of it's defence sector, because it simply could not reduce the costs of building the platforms the DoD requires, and ultimately has sustained billions in losses because of this.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/

In 2024, Boeing lost money again, due to the costs of building weapons platforms for the DoD being higher than the price that the DoD decided it will buy them at

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/07...r-boeings-defense-arm-in-second-quarter-exec/

https://www.flightglobal.com/defenc...cts-drive-33bn-loss-for-boeing/150708.article

The same story for Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics etc etc

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/lockheed-martin-projects-potential-1-billion-loss-on-classified-program/#:~:text=WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin took a,the year, executives said today.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/...ts-after-companies-report-big-losses-00141433

https://heartlandernews.com/2024/03...-saying-no-to-their-biggest-customer-the-dod/

Northrop Grumman Corp. took a $1.56 billion pre-tax loss in January on the B-21 Raider program. The company bid on the U.S. Air Force project in 2015, before the pandemic, inflation and supply chain issues, which have led to cost overruns that the company has to eat under the terms of its contract.#

Boeing lost $7 billion after winning a fixed-price development program for the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation tanker, the KC-46. The contract was firm-fixed-price, meaning Boeing was on the hook if costs ran higher than expected. The total value of the contract was $4.9 billion.

Lockheed Martin chief executive Jim Taiclet offered a warning during a quarterly earnings call this week,

The government, he said, is putting too much risk on defense companies by flexing its muscle as the sole buyer of military hardware, and his firm is changing its approach.

“We don’t have any must-win programs with Lockheed Martin anymore,” Taiclet said.

Taiclet was one of several defense industry executives who this week aired their angst about the government’s contracting practices. Many were particularly concerned about fixed-price contracts. Under these agreements, meant to secure the least risk for taxpayers, companies pick up the bill when costs run higher than expected. Such cases can be disastrous for defense firms — like Boeing’s $7 billion in overruns on a $4.9 billion contract for the KC-46, an Air Force tanker.

Taiclet argued that, as the defense industry’s only customer in most cases, the Pentagon has enough sway to make its suppliers accept its terms.

“Some of the competitors feel that they’re must-win programs for them, [and] that they will take tremendous risk on costs and pricing,” he said, noting that was no longer the case at Lockheed Martin. Those risks combine to result in cost overruns and delays on major programs, he said.

Taiclet said the problem exists in both fixed-price and cost-plus contracts. But, during the same call, Lockheed chief financial officer Jay Malave noted the company is now seeing an “uptick” in cost-plus contracts, which could mean less risk.

A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

RTX says it’s working with the Pentagon to restructure certain classified programs as the company says it’s losing money on fixed-price development contracts.

Big picture: Fixed-price contracts force the company to pay for cost overruns and not charge the government. But RTX executives said during a fourth-quarter earnings call with investors Tuesday that the requirements for some classified programs were forcing the company to take employees from other business segments to tackle such projects, adding to the expense.

July 31 (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab posted a bigger quarterly loss, as its troubled defense and space business exacerbated the financial strain on the U.S. planemaker that has already scaled back commercial aircraft production to tackle a quality crisis.
Its second-quarter net loss stood at $1.44 billion, the company said on Wednesday, compared with $149 million a year ago.
Boeing's Defense, Space and Security unit, one of its three main businesses, has lost billions of dollars in 2023 and 2022, which executives attributed to cost overruns on fixed-price contracts.

Even the DoD have said that their practices have caused unrest in their primary contractors

Industry giants like Northrop Grumman and Boeing may have lost billions of dollars recently on their fixed-price deals with the Pentagon, but the Air Force is not moving away from the contracting mechanism even as corporate resistance to the model mounts, according to the service’s top weapons buyer.

Speaking during a discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council on Friday, Andrew Hunter expressed concern that companies have had to absorb huge losses on fixed-price programs as inflation and supply chain woes have pushed costs higher in recent years. However, the Air Force’s acquisition czar emphasized that the fixed-price model should remain in place especially when combined with a different acquisition approach.

“I do care,” Hunter said when asked about losses on programs like Boeing’s KC-46A Pegasus air refueling tanker whose charges have topped $7 billion. “Without industry’s capabilities, we’re never going to get to where we have to go. So we want our industry partners to be there for us in the long run, and we do not want to undermine their long run viability by the way in which we approach programs.”

d) Barring exceptional edge cases, the majority of the MIC make weapons only when the DoD requests them to, and not vice versa?

e) One of the very few industries where the primary consumer can arbitarily decide that they're going to pay less, "reduce the cost" and make it into law, and then give some offset R&D money to "make it happen."

See: F-35. It's now cheaper than Gripen, Eurofighter, F15, and is probably now the cheapest modern airframe on an upfront purchase basis. All because the DoD went, "We're not going to pay more than this by 20XX, here's some money to increase your production line efficiency. Make it happen."


Given that defense contractors are running lots of weapons programs at loss, the DoD is skimming them, and that there's huge pressure now on the DoD to shift contracting so that the primary defense contractors aren't losing money by selling to the US Military - and that the only real high profit agenda items are foreign sales:

How is this the case of "The tail wagging the dog?"

Methinks you don't actually know what you're talking about and are just repeating the hashed out myth of "Military Industrial complex bad"

 

[Bert_]

So regarding % wise, I don't know. Because DoD and DoVA has it's seperated funding which added together totals slightly over a trillion. The DoD Healthcare and Pensions costing is part of it's Personnel costings, where some of the breakdowns aren't fully available in the public domain. Or it's broken down in some 500 page DoD PDF that I haven't managed to sift through.

But total numbers wise: Personnel Salaries + Active Personnel Healthcare + Pensions + Housing + Veterans Healthcare totals to a number just short of 600 Billion USD

https://department.va.gov/administrations-and-offices/management/budget/#:~:text=The U.S. Department of Veterans,above FY 2024 estimated levels.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Por...Y2025/FY2025_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

So let's go through all the chronic shortages of the US right now:

1) Shipbuilding - This is the biggest problem facing the US military right now. There are a lot of reasons that factor in to why US military shipbuilding is in catastrophically bad shape right now, but my main gripe is with the Jones Act and the general lack of political willingness to subsidize the building of new shipyards. This, plus the general malaise of the civilian shipbuilding industry has made the USN unable to expand. In the Cold War, the US could field 600-700 ship fleets. Now, the US Navy is aiming to reach a 400 ship navy by the end of the 2030's. To put into context of how bad this problem is, China at the moment is able to build 6 destroyers a year, the US is able to build 1.5. China is able to build 5 Submarines a year, US is able to build 2. China has put out 2 new aircraft carriers (with a further one currently undergoing early stage trials) in 6 years, US in the same time frame has been able to build the USS Gerald R. Ford. In the past 5 years, China has built 21 modern frigates. US has built....none. China has built 8 LHD/LHA's, US has built 2.5. You see how the disparity here is incredibly, incredibly concerning?

2) The state of the Navy in general. There are so so many things wrong with the Navy right now that requires sustained investment of hundreds of billions in order to begin to rectify.

-There is still no active US Frigate since the Oliver Hazard Perry's retired, and until the Constellations are built. This means that bigger ships have to do the duty of frigates, which leads to overworked hulls, degredation (Which leads to further increased costs of R&R) as well as crew fatigue.
- There is still no DDG(X) Program to replace the 45 year old Arleigh Burke hull. Arleigh Burke's have reached the end of their design lifespan.
- There is still no LSC design to replace the Ticonderoga class which reached the end of its service life. LSC should have been completed a decade ago, but due to budget cuts there was never a replacement for the cruisers. What the Navy have done instead is to turn the LSC program into Arleigh Burke Flight III, which is to cram even more engine power into a 45 year old hull, put in flagship modules and add a few more missile tubes and a more power radar to replace the Ticonderga. It's not a real Tico replacement, just a short term stop gap.
- There are not enough sailors, which has led to many fatal accidents this past 5 years, especially to the 7th Fleet.
- There are simply not enough ships in general, again mainly to the 7th fleet, which has led to some horrendous faults.
- The navy simply do not have the money to buy enough F-35C's. What they're doing is praying NGAD FA(XX) comes through and they will buy those instead. If it doesn't, the Navy is screwed in a Pacific war where it has to rely on Superhornets against 5th Gen Chinese Aircraft.

Oh, you know whats funny about the last point? The Navy is delaying its FA(XX) program because...it cannot afford it due to so many other pressing urgent issues! Furthermore, due to the obsolescence of the existing FA18 Hornets, the production lines for them have been shut down. So Navy have no way of procuring current Naval Air Wings, cannot afford F-35's and cannot afford to research FA(XX) to replace the FA18's.

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03...x-fighter-spending-for-near-term-investments/

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-nation-needs-400-ship-navy#:~:text=To achieve the 400-ship,current long-range shipbuilding plan.





3) The Air Force is not faring any better.

- There is no long term primary Air Superiority Fighter in the works. The primary project for this just got suspended, partly due to lack of funding. Without Airforce NGAD, the USAF is incredibly vulnerable. The lifespan of the F-22 is coming to an end soon and the USAF are still going to have to rely on its baseline F-15's from the 1970's as the main frontline Air Superiority Fighter (Granted, F-15EX is exponentially more modern and better than F15-C's). Congress were so worried USAF were going to retire the F-22 due to lack of scalability and modernization that they actually put a law in that prevented F-22's from being retired.

https://www.airforce-technology.com...ngress-with-f-22-retirement-data-gao/?cf-view

https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/07/31/chasseur-de-6ᵉ-generation-ngad-suspendu/

- Loyal Wingman integrated networked drones is delayed. This was meant to be the future of the USAF - F-35's and NGAD's supported by autonomous cheap fighter jets that didn't require a pilot and was fully AI controlled. Well, this has been delayed by about 2-3 years now.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/12/no-bucks-no-bang-secaf-kendall-warns-24-budget-logjam-could-cost-a-year-on-ai-fighter/#:~:text=REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE FORUM — The,Force Frank Kendall warned today.

- Lack of any deep penetrative tactical bomber on the horizon. B-21 is a strategic bomber, F117's have been retired, F-35's can do it but are not suitable entirely for that purpose due to lack of payload size, B-1 Lancer's are a mess. There is nothing that will allow for Tactical level deep penetration bombing missions against critical infrastructure. There isn't even a R&D/Research Program to overcome this problem right now.

- Delay in AIM-260 A2A missile. This is meant to be the counter to the PL-15 but it's offset with delay after delay, due to lack of congressional funding and no money to be spent on it.

- The KC Tanker procurement plan is an absolute mess right now.

4) The Army is in okay shape, but it's undergoing a massive modernization program that is being completely underfunded.

- Old M2A2 Bradleys need replacing. XM30 has been given the go-ahead, the Army says they need to procure 4000 of them, just for active service (Forget reserves and backup vehicles). It was meant to be done by 2014, but due to funding issues, got delayed and delayed and the final contract hasn't even been given due to this.
- M113's are being replaced. In 2012 the US Army proposed they need 3000 AMPV's (M128(X) series). It never got funded so we're now in 2024 and it took until 2023 for the FIRST BATTALION of AMPV's to get delivered to the Army.
- MBT Modernization program is going incredibly slowly. It's now a competition between AbramsX and AbramsM1A3X. IF it gets funding, a new MBT might be in service by 2030.
- M109 Paladin's have been earmarked for replacement. A project called M1299 Howitzer was earmarked. Cancelled in 2024. Why? Too expensive relative to its value.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...nded-range-cannon-artillery-prototype-effort/

- Light Tank Project finally saw the light of day, with the M10 Booker finally entering service. About 5-8 years too late and not enough funding for mass production yet.
-

https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/03/12/super-canon-m1299-erca-abandon-us-army/


Man, It's really late and I could go on and on and on about all the issues that need resolving (primarily with desperately needed funding), but I'd be here all night.

I haven't even touched on SM-6 production bottlenecks, LRASM low rate production, Standard Issue Rifle replacement delays and all the other myriad of problems plaguing the US military right now.

The US military is in its worse shape relatively since about 1975.

Appreciate the detailed post. Some decent facts and info in there.

But you're stating reasons why you think the budget should be increased in order for the military to be better than it is currently. That's not the same as being underfunded. If you overfund something for decades for various reasons (cold war etc) then reining it in a bit to match current necessities shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

The ultimate question is - Who can outgun the US in any form of combat? If the answer is no one, then it's military is doing pretty well for itself.

 

[NLunited]

Why this detailed discussion of the US military in this thread? Make another please.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Appreciate the detailed post. Some decent facts and info in there.

But you're stating reasons why you think the budget should be increased in order for the military to be better than it is currently. That's not the same as being underfunded. If you overfund something for decades for various reasons (cold war etc) then reining it in a bit to match current necessities shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

The ultimate question is - Who can outgun the US in any form of combat? If the answer is no one, then it's military is doing pretty well for itself.

China in the Eastern Pacific in a US vs China no allies scenario. Which is going to be where the next war is going to be. China in the South China Sea.

All of the above I have highlighted (barring the Army stuff which is not all that relevant to the pacific) will help immensely in an East Pacific fight.


Overall, if we had a ridiculous arena scenario where the entire Chinese military and the US military faced off, either in a flat open neutral land, or in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with nothing else - the US would wipe China.

The reality is Taiwan is right by China and this is not an arena, and therefore in that specific scenario, China currently is stronger than USA (again, disregarding USA allies which swing it the other way) - for multiple reasons.

-China has airbases in its country that can reach the region, US has to rely on aircraft carriers, bases on foreign soil and a supply chain that is 10,000 km long.
-China can bring all of its tactical missiles to bear, again due to the proximity. US cannot.
-China has easy access to its home ports for repair, refitting and rearming/resupply. US has to rely on foreign ports and again, a 10,000 km long supply chain of shipping replacement parts and men across the entire pacific.
-China has its entire air defense network where the fight is going to be, US does not.

Wit hall these disadvantages, US has to really drive home their technological superiority and reach somewhat of a numerical parity, of which they are currently lacking and the technological superiority is fading away very quickly.

 

[DanH]

While some of this is interesting and @AfonsoAlves has clearly put a lot of effort into posts, it might be worth moving some of the posts into the Geopolitics thread now.

 

[Bert_]

China in the Eastern Pacific in a US vs China no allies scenario. Which is going to be where the next war is going to be. China in the South China Sea.

All of the above I have highlighted (barring the Army stuff which is not all that relevant to the pacific) will help immensely in an East Pacific fight.


Overall, if we had a ridiculous arena scenario where the entire Chinese military and the US military faced off, either in a flat open neutral land, or in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with nothing else - the US would wipe China.

The reality is Taiwan is right by China and this is not an arena, and therefore in that specific scenario, China currently is stronger than USA (again, disregarding USA allies which swing it the other way) - for multiple reasons.

-China has airbases in its country that can reach the region, US has to rely on aircraft carriers, bases on foreign soil and a supply chain that is 10,000 km long.
-China can bring all of its tactical missiles to bear, again due to the proximity. US cannot.
-China has easy access to its home ports for repair, refitting and rearming/resupply. US has to rely on foreign ports and again, a 10,000 km long supply chain of shipping replacement parts and men across the entire pacific.
-China has its entire air defense network where the fight is going to be, US does not.

Wit hall these disadvantages, US has to really drive home their technological superiority and reach somewhat of a numerical parity, of which they are currently lacking and the technological superiority is fading away very quickly.

So China has home advantage and the US might not be able to supress them in the South China sea? If the expectation is total global dominance, including controlling China, then an arms race is inevitable. Hopefully common sense takes root.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

So China has home advantage and the US might not be able to supress them in the South China sea? If the expectation is total global dominance, including controlling China, then an arms race is inevitable. Hopefully common sense takes root.

A few things

a) China is currently in a lot of disputes over the South China sea and are breaking international law in doing so, with their '9 dash line'. Just because it's called the South China Sea doesn't mean that it actually belongs to China, just like the Indian ocean doesn't belong to India. Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines are currently all in high tension states with China over this issue.

b) The expectation is not global dominance. The expectation is maintaining the current status quo, of which a huge portion of traffic goes through the South China Sea, which China have now militarized with coral reef islands.

c) The first island chain is a crucial part of the US strategy in Asia. Losing the First Island chain (Taiwan, Japan, Okinawa and SK) is a huge loss to US strategic position. This is not about suppressing China and asserting dominance over them, this is about protecting Taiwan, the first Island chain and south east Asia from growing Chinese aggression in the region.

For context: The red line is China's claim in the South China Sea, which anyone can take one look at to tell you its bullshit

 

[The United]

So China has home advantage and the US might not be able to supress them in the South China sea? If the expectation is total global dominance, including controlling China, then an arms race is inevitable. Hopefully common sense takes root.

China has been providing some of its drones, technologies and experts to the three separatists groups that they backed against the Myanmar's Junta. Those fecked up the Junta's force pretty badly and they lost half of the biggest state in the country within about three months which was the worst defeat of a central force in about 50 years. Junta's forces are well equipped with the Russians and Iranian arms and drones as well.

Now the interesting or disgusting part about is that rumors has been going on that the Chinese are testing their drones in Myanmar for the inevitable future war.

 

[Bert_]

A few things

a) China is currently in a lot of disputes over the South China sea and are breaking international law in doing so, with their '9 dash line'. Just because it's called the South China Sea doesn't mean that it actually belongs to China, just like the Indian ocean doesn't belong to India. Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines are currently all in high tension states with China over this issue.

b) The expectation is not global dominance. The expectation is maintaining the current status quo, of which a huge portion of traffic goes through the South China Sea, which China have now militarized with coral reef islands.

c) The first island chain is a crucial part of the US strategy in Asia. Losing the First Island chain (Taiwan, Japan, Okinawa and SK) is a huge loss to US strategic position. This is not about suppressing China and asserting dominance over them, this is about protecting Taiwan, the first Island chain and south east Asia from growing Chinese aggression in the region.

For context: The red line is China's claim in the South China Sea, which anyone can take one look at to tell you its bullshit

I'm well aware of China's ridiculous claims of sovereignty, but that doesn't invalidate the point. The US has economic reasons for maintaining control in the region, but it's got nothing to do with defence.

Anyway, we should move this to a more appropriate thread as @DanH said. I doubt this will feature much in the US election.

 

[Rado_N]

Can you lot bore off with the military budget analysis

 

[Mike Smalling]

Won’t somebody please think of Lockheed Martin’s profit margins?!

 

[Raoul]

Moved the military hardware derailment in here. @AfonsoAlves , please keep all military hardware/geopolitical chat in here from now on.

 

[berbatrick]

Almost the entirety of the Middle East is dependent on US for security. Saudi Arabia wants a nato style alliance with USA and are even willing to normalise relations with Israel to get that. Saudis, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan are all very much dependent, at their own request.

So is most of east Asia and Oceania and south east Asia. Philippines just leased out 6 US bases, Vietnam is becoming ever closer, Indonesia just conducted large naval exercises with joint missions with USN and Japan and Korea don’t need further explaining.

genuinely funny example given what the US and Pak military leadership has had to cook up in order to subvert the slightly-less-US-bootlicking democratic choice.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

genuinely funny example given what the US and Pak military leadership has had to cook up in order to subvert the slightly-less-US-bootlicking democratic choice.

I have yet to be convinced of Imran Khan's claims that the Military coup was US instigated.

It's a classic move in that region that when something deposes them of power, they blame the US. Sometimes its true, sometimes the US barely had any involvement if any.

 

[B. Munich]

China in the Eastern Pacific in a US vs China no allies scenario. Which is going to be where the next war is going to be. China in the South China Sea.

How do you know that? China isn't know to solve to use military force to achieve their strategic goals.
Therefore, the Chinese people's army has zero combat praxis, which is absolutely crucial for such a difficult military operation like invading Taiwan.

The US are building 4 new bases here on Luzon Island and many of the US veterans living here in the Philippines are sure that China has no chance to invade Taiwan. Alone from the terrain it would be much more difficult than operation overlord.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

How do you know that? China isn't know to solve to use military force to achieve their strategic goals.
Therefore, the Chinese people's army has zero combat praxis, which is absolutely crucial for such a difficult military operation like invading Taiwan.

The US are building 4 new bases here on Luzon Island and many of the US veterans living here in the Philippines are sure that China has no chance to invade Taiwan. Alone from the terrain it would be much more difficult than operation overlord.

You don't know for certain, but China is undergoing the largest Naval buildup in Military History and if it plans to do nothing with it, good for them and all of us but I highly suspect otherwise.

I Highly, highly, doubt actual US Veterans said that. I don't know a single veteran right now, or serving member involved in that region, who is confident of a direct confrontation between PLAN and 7th Fleet.

Also RE the terrain, is also another overblown myth that someone circulated online and got turned into fact.

 

[B. Munich]

I Highly, highly, doubt actual US Veterans said that. I don't know a single veteran right now, or serving member involved in that region, who is confident of a direct confrontation between PLAN and 7th Fleet.

They aren't retired generals. They say China is missing crucial combat experience as they never fought a war in recent years.
With the new US bases in North Luzon the US will be able to easily control the Luzon strait and make it for China pretty much impossible to invade Taiwan via the Luzon strait.
The Navy won't be enough to conquer Taiwan.

I'm no military expert but looking at a cost/gain analysis an attack of Taiwan makes no sense for China.
Surely, if Xi for some reason loses his common sense like Putin he might risk a move.
It will be terrible for the world economy that's for sure.

 

[NYAS]

Worth mentioning, at least in the Middle Eastern context, that essentially all of those countries are autocratic governments and acting against the wishes of their own populations in doing so.

Less relevant of course in East Asia.

As someone from the Gulf, I’d say that isn’t accurate (strictly regarding the Gulf countries). I’ve never once heard any sentiment along the lines of “we don’t want US bases here” or “we don’t want US protection”.

They would generally like a stronger stand against what’s happening in Palestine, but not enough to cause any sort of unrest over it.

Other than that, I’d say that Gulf populations’ wishes regarding foreign policy is largely in line with government policy.

Your comment may well be true if applied to Iraq.

 

[NicolaSacco]

They aren't retired generals. They say China is missing crucial combat experience as they never fought a war in recent years.
With the new US bases in North Luzon the US will be able to easily control the Luzon strait and make it for China pretty much impossible to invade Taiwan via the Luzon strait.
The Navy won't be enough to conquer Taiwan.

I'm no military expert but looking at a cost/gain analysis an attack of Taiwan makes no sense for China.
Surely, if Xi for some reason loses his common sense like Putin he might risk a move.
It will be terrible for the world economy that's for sure.

Can you explain how the Luzon strait is important here? Isn’t that the bit between Taiwan and the Philippines, not the direct bit between China and Taiwan?

 

[B. Munich]

Can you explain how the Luzon strait is important here? Isn’t that the bit between Taiwan and the Philippines, not the direct bit between China and Taiwan?

Again I'm not a military expert. Some of the retired US military guys living here all said Taiwan can only be invaded from the east coast, thus the Chinese navy will have to pass through the Luzon strait in the south or the north where the Japanese are.

There are many YouTube videos about it also.



Are they credible? At least I hope they are somehow. Maybe some experts here can comment.

 

[Spoony]

@Alfonso

You don't know for certain, but China is undergoing the largest Naval buildup in Military History and if it plans to do nothing with it, good for them and all of us but I highly suspect otherwise.

I Highly, highly, doubt actual US Veterans said that. I don't know a single veteran right now, or serving member involved in that region, who is confident of a direct confrontation between PLAN and 7th Fleet.

Also RE the terrain, is also another overblown myth that someone circulated online and got turned into fact.

You remind me of mathiaslg. Whatever happened to that bloke? I bet @Wibble knows.

 

[VorZakone]

What exactly do you mean with this emoji? That you prefer a world dominated by Russia and China?

@Sweet Square perhaps you could answer this question in this thread? You posted that emoji in the 2024 election thread in response to a comment about the West being potentially fecked in 20-30 years.

 

[Raoul]

@Alfonso


You remind me of mathiaslg. Whatever happened to that bloke? I bet @Wibble knows.

He joined the Army and went to Airborne school. Probably deployed to various places given the wars at the time.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

@Sweet Square perhaps you could answer this question in this thread? You posted that emoji in the 2024 election thread in response to a comment about the West being potentially fecked in 20-30 years.

Comrade @Sweet Square longs for the good old days of the Soviet Union where he was set for a long career as a Brezhnevist party apparatchik and in the running for a Politburo seat.

 

[Spoony]

He joined the Army and went to Airborne school. Probably deployed to various places given the wars at the time.

Ahh thanks.

 

[B. Munich]

Wrong thread? Or where am I missing the link to geopolitics in this message?

 

[DanH]

Wrong thread? Or where am I missing the link to geopolitics in this message?

It is to do with international relations. I'm not sure what the consequences of the decision will be.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Again I'm not a military expert. Some of the retired US military guys living here all said Taiwan can only be invaded from the east coast, thus the Chinese navy will have to pass through the Luzon strait in the south or the north where the Japanese are.

There are many YouTube videos about it also.



Are they credible? At least I hope they are somehow. Maybe some experts here can comment.

Thanks man, yeah I guess geography is key here.

 

[VorZakone]

Why Whataboutism Works - In International Politics, It Pays to Point Fingers

Yet although whataboutism works, it is not all-powerful. Our research found that whataboutism was highly successful when foreign governments pointed to more recent U.S. actions that mimicked their own—in other words, when Washington was being hypocritical. But it was less effective when foreign governments were citing an abuse that happened long ago, and it was almost entirely ineffective when they cited an unrelated bad act. American policymakers, therefore, can successfully rebuke others as long as their criticisms cannot easily be flipped back.

Our finding was clear: whataboutism is highly effective in undercutting U.S. public support for foreign policy initiatives. It significantly reduced support for criticizing foreign countries. Before hearing a whataboutist critique, for example, 56 percent of respondents approved of Washington’s criticism of the foreign country’s actions. But after hearing it, approval fell to 38 percent.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/why-whataboutism-works

 

[Sweet Square]

@Sweet Square perhaps you could answer this question in this thread? You posted that emoji in the 2024 election thread in response to a comment about the West being potentially fecked in 20-30 years.

I might be wrong but the West in that thread was referring to institutions like the US military and increasing its spending.

We only have look at any of the images coming out from Gaza to see the material effect of the west. The genocide in Gaza is turning into the worst crime of the 21st century. Western Military and elite institutions are funding the extermination of a people.

Conservatives of course support it but the crimes in Gaza have shown secular western liberals today when it comes to valuing basic human life are to the right of the Pope and the Houthis.

The genocide in Gaza is the west at its most repulsively and ignorant. A decaying society run by technocratic politicians who believe in nothing and voted in by the most Facebook poised homeowners. All funded by a parasitic rent seeking capitalist class past their sell-by date.

The sooner this collapses(Hopefully for a more democratic and humane society)the better imo.

Comrade @Sweet Square longs for the good old days of the Soviet Union where he was set for a long career as a Brezhnevist party apparatchik and in the running for a Politburo seat.

I mean $10 a month for rent, plenty of vodka and Tarkovsky films. What’s not to love.