Hosted by autogun
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 24-Oct by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5:39 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5:22 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5:00 by gatnerd
Latest 2:53 by gatnerd
Latest 1:02 by gatnerd
Latest 15-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 14-Jan by taschoene
Latest 13-Jan by renatohm
Latest 13-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 12-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 11-Jan by pg55555
Latest 11-Jan by mpopenker
Latest 10-Jan by autogun
Latest 10-Jan by stancrist
Latest 5-Jan by Red7272
Latest 2-Jan by renatohm
Latest 2-Jan by TonyDiG
Latest 2-Jan by Mustrakrakis
Latest 1-Jan by graylion
Latest 31-Dec by renatohm
Latest 31-Dec by smg762
Latest 30-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 28-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 28-Dec by graylion
Latest 28-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 26-Dec by graylion
Latest 25-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 25-Dec by renatohm
Latest 24-Dec by stancrist
Latest 19-Dec by autogun
Latest 17-Dec by EmericD
23-Oct
What facts? Maybe you ought to start paying attention to what’s happening in the western Pacific, the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.
23-Oct
Very simple facts: absolute lack of meaningful clashes between USA and China since Corea, and between Rusia and USA since 1918
No exceptions. Very clear tendences. Nuclear umbrella works like in 1970
23-Oct
If two man crews works for fighter jets and Helicopters no reason it cannot work for MBTs!
23-Oct
NealB4Wilson said:If two man crews works for fighter jets and Helicopters no reason it cannot work for MBTs!
Well apparently the plan is for the vehicle to be self driving. . .
23-Oct
poliorcetes said:No exceptions. Very clear tendences. Nuclear umbrella works like in 1970
Yeah the hilarious beating up of the imaginary threats. "China right now preparing to invade Taiwan!!!!" When China has the clear advantage economically and diplomatically on a worldwide basis though its infrastructure programs and low interest loans.
The poor old fascist west is losing everywhere and they don't like it.
24-Oct
Red7272 said:The poor old fascist west
Ironically, China is one of the only countries that actually checks all of the boxes for Fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[9] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[9] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Fascism seeks to solve economic, political and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
Fascism promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state...
Fascists opposed both24-Oct
poliorcetes said:Very simple facts: absolute lack of meaningful clashes between USA and China since Corea
Well thats because after 1972 and Nixon/Kissinger, the US believed it was Allies with China against the Soviets.
Then from 1991-2016, the Washington/Western consensus was that if we appeased China enough with more and more trade concessions, they were due to become democratic any day now. Overt public criticism of China was deemed taboo - much less any talk of military confrontation.
Meanwhile China's military modernization has only really occurred in the last 10-15 years.
Post 2016, and especially now post-Covid, things are looking extremely different.
This is a great news aggregator on the subject that will have your warning lights flashing:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NewColdWar/
Notably, both sides are focussing on long range, precision guided Conventional Missiles as the basis of competition. Specifically those with Anti-Ship capability.
The result is that the risk of nuclear war is very low, while the risk of conventional war, specifically naval, is increasing by the day.
Here's an article just from today:
https://www.newsweek.com/xi-jinping-china-ready-war-trump-biden-take-hard-line-beijing-1541606
24-Oct
Science and engineering are both based on facts. Actual events which can be summarized and used as based for forecasting. In order to model the future, you need past events that actually happened
What do we have?
This year, China and Pakistan have one event. Fists, clubs and stones. Two nuclear powers very careful of avoiding any kind of escalation.
Last year, India and Pakistan have an aerial encounter over Kashmir. One fighter was shoot down, some bombs were used against an empty target, and extremely careful measures were taken in order to avoid escalation
1969: Zhenbao (Damansky) Island clashes between soviets and chinese. Some fire was exchanged, but anyways strong measures were taken against escalation
A different kind of factual data is arms race between nuclear powers. They are maintained over the decades, but generation after generation of systems are not used in anger between each other
What actual data do justifies a different outcome, given the same precedents?
Why after more than seven decades we persist in believe that peer engagement is probable?
Why once and again nuclear umbrella is downplayed and downsized?
24-Oct
poliorcetes said...
Why after more than seven decades we persist in believe that peer engagement is probable?
Because we have seen what happens with non-peer engagements. If you have nothing between your police and atomic weapons, an opponent doesn’t have to escalate in order to wander in with a couple of companies of soldiers in APCs and take ground off you. If you respond with atomic weapons you are being disproportionate.
While Iraq, both times, might have seemed one-sided, that was because the more powerful side had invested in peer engagement capabilities. Could the west have liberated Kuwait with Atomic weapons? I doubt it.
Your examples of border clashes between nuclear capable powers highlights that both powers are showing that they are both willing and able to fight the other. A conventional deterrence is still part of a nuclear deterrence.