If I can find it. The basic premise is they know exactly where all the US **** is, and can just overwhelm anti missile defense systems with a giant initial barrage.

Doesn't seem like a super hot take this might be more or less true.

Considering there is a tweet for everything that's being asked, I don't think there is going to be legitimate account that shares accurate information on military capabilities of the us or china considering that its consistently evolving and basically no one in the public is going to be made aware of it.

At that point all of China's invasion force would be gathered in one area. So while potentially true, it overlooks the fact that USA would respond in the same manner against a very concentrated force.

That would also be a declaration of war, which would be the #1 thing China would want to avoid when they send their military to an area not recognized by the UN in order to handle "internal affairs".

True enough. But it seems reasonable China could just overwhelm US positions with a giant initial barrage. Nowhere to run or hid on aircraft carriers and small, exposed islands.

I have heard it argued Iran could more or less do this with all our bases in Iraq/Syria. Although Iran's entire economy runs through one port city that would be very easy to destroy, so Iran has strong economic incentives not to have things escalate to that point with the US, Israel or the Sunni monarchies.

I think that the idea that China could completly wipe out all american military bases in Asia in a single stroke is a super hot take tbh.

There are 10 marine corps bases, 4 navy bases and 4 air force bases in Japan alone.

last year was at a closed door lecture given given by a retired admiral who was in charge of the pacific so his main focus was on potential conflicts with china

during the q&a session someone asked about china's anti-carrier missiles

he felt confident that carrier groups had sufficient maneuverability (they are in constant movement of over 35 mph - this is by design specifically to make targeting with missiles difficult) and counter measures would heavily negate the threat of those missiles - however he did concede that nobody would actually know how effective they are until they are finally put to use vs an actual carrier group

there's also a non-zero chance he gave a nothingburger answer because the truth is not publicly disclosed

China could empty its entire clip of (non-nuclear) missile arsenal and still probably fail to destroy American assets in the region. Doubtful they even get the 7th fleet.

We got thousands of Patriot missiles, hundreds of destroyers and cruisers each carrying tens of interceptors, and many of whom carry additional anti air (CIWS for example).

The US has been building anti missile defense since WWII and, in no small part thanks to the Israelis getting to test against tens of thousands of rockets, has gotten quite good at it.

Also pretty much every Chinese military installation on the coasts should start evacuations before the missiles land.

Ok. I'll take the L on this one. You guys are probably right. I dont have any conviction the information I read was correct. Just seemed interesting if it was.

https://warontherocks.com/2024/06/a-...-launch-a-war/

Just a random chart from Twitter with no sourcing so def take with a grain of salt but ...



Due to most of the semiconductors being built there there are massive global implications. Makes it super obvious why China is so thirsty for Taiwan beyond their ego

Even if the data is completely made up, what this is pointing towards is pretty clearly correct imo.


The article makes an interesting argument that because it is so important to world economy that China can't really try to blockade Taiwan unless they are going for a full military invasion.

It is interesting how despite being the self-appointed world's policeman, the US is actually more insulated than most countries to major disturbances. For example, if the Houthis/Iran completely blocked Indian Ocean shipping and started destroying underwater cables, the chart would be similar, where Asia and Europe would be much more affected than the US.

USA is extremely risk averse and prepares for worst case scenarios. A major part of that is having a large military with few vulnerabilities which has been insulted repeatedly by Europe. Now that Europe is dealing with the fact that USA might stop subsidizing their defense they are waking up to the fact that large scale wars didn't necessarily end after WW2 so I think this will change drastically in the near future.

I admit I dont know the geopolitical intracacies of the Iranian nuclear situation well; but it is interesting that Europe (and obviously Israel) seems more committed to blocking Iran from getting a nuclear weapon than the US is. Although it isn't clear Europeans have the ability or will to use force to make this a reality, so it might just be all hot air.

I don't know if it's fair to say that they are more committed to blocking Iran that the USA. USA is likely going about it differently.

USA seems to think that the situation has reached a stage that is sustainable. Iran can create a nuclear weapon in a few months if they decide to, but the punishment for doing so is too great to attempt it. To make it so that Iran can not make a nuclear weapon within a few months would mean military action. USA is not willing to do that. USA is likely constantly explaining what would happen if Iran does go this through with this behind private doors and they are not willing to go further than that.

On top of that Russia and China are likely both pressuring Iran not to make a weapon, and Russia and China are in turn and receiving pressure from USA to put further pressure on Iran.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c844q27v732o

Hopefully a one time event, but it's also a very predictable outcome of China becoming more ultra nationalist.