US ‘Gets Its Ass Handed To It’ In Wargames: Here’s A $24 Billion Fix

And I'm going to eat at McDonald's....the only place in the world it's worth a damn, other than in Ukraine. Must be the whites working.....just a casual observation. They actually work.

 

Considering the contagious diseases they are bringing with them, it's a good idea.
Warfare has many facets, and one of the most frightening is biological weapons.

 

That's not an answer.

 

The anti-vaxxers are certainly biological weapons.

 

Thats a lot of text just to deflect a simple question.

 

Defending Taiwan or Estonia, Latvia, etc. would be difficult. That would be like asking the Russians to defend Cuba (90 miles from Florida) if the Americans decided to attack.

Are the Chinese and Russians looking for military conquest?

 

As a foreigner who is glosting over the bad news for America what do you suggest we do about it?

 

I think the russians want their empire back

And china has a deep grudge against the west

It will be a crying shame if Taiwan falls inder the chinese communist dictatorship

And the same goes for the people of eastern europe

But I suspect we are losing our edge over the bad guys

 

china dont have deep grudge against the west, thats in your mind. as late as 80s china was friendlier nation with west. all that change after their economy raise and after fall of USSR. if you translate america in chinese, it means "beautiful country", they envy the lifestyle of americans.

 

The war games tell us that we can't stop Russia from invading the Baltics or China from invading Taiwan.

I'm not surprised, and didn't need RAND to tell me that. I also wouldn't be willing to devote the resources needed to prevent those scenarios.

 

Yeah, they were really friendly towards the west as their troops swarmed over our guys in Korea. They were real friendly as they armed and supported Ho.

 

Sorry, but china does have a strong memory of humilation by the west and sense of payback whether you admit it or not

Individusl chinese do tend to like America and many crave US citizenship as a hedge against future events in china

Thats why wealthy chinese women come to America to have an anchor baby

But china is a one-party dictatorship so the people have no voice in politics

 

I see you are still trying to figure out what "MAD" - Mutually Assured Destruction means.

 

Is it? It seemed suitably condensed for the argument presented imo.

On the other hand making an accusation of deflection sometimes is a deflection - as in your post above -- because the poster has nothing to present in rebuttal.

 

And it is not just that. The vast majority of our Military spend is based on the idea of winning a conventional war. Even if this thinking made some sense - we have many times more than we need.

The fact of the matter is that this thinking makes zero sense. We will not be fighting a war with a nuclear superpower such as Russia. If we were to attack the Russian homeland - and having success - at some point Russia would use nukes - at which point all the conventional toys are completely useless.

 

"MAD" = old man, bitter as hell, seeks a coward's way to end his life by taking the entire world with him.

 

And add to that - someone who is so pathetic and self absorbed that they don't care for the future of their children or grandchildren - Me Me Me.

 

Sooner or later the west will have to put a limit upon chinas ambitions or accept chinese domination

Taiwan is an excellent place to start

 

I didn't say anything about using nuclear weapons genius.

 

I don't think the Chinese are going to invade Taiwan. I also don't think the Russians will invade the Baltic, though it's more plausible.

We would need to send much more equipment and personnel to East Asia to be able to prevent an invasion of Taiwan. We would have to abandon other theaters or balloon the budget and wait several years.

 

China does not want to invade taiwan

Their preference is to undermine the islands will to resist so that war is not necessary

 

You said:

Perhaps you are unaware of what your claims mean but, it does not take a genius to figure out that "any conceivable future conflict" includes the possibility of nuclear weapons.

If you meant "any conceivable future conventional conflict" - then this is what you should have said.

 

Taking cheap shots is not considered a debate. My question was simple and remains unanswered. Will you be answering or should I expect another deflection?

 

I'm sorry. My mistake. But given that unless I specifically state nuclear weapons being used then I simply assume we're all talking about a conventional conflict. After all, nuclear weapons haven't been used in three quarters of a century.