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. . .

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. 

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Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond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...

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

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?

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.

But there haven't been any clash beyond a skirmish between nuclear powers in the last 67 years. One thing is to have conventional deterrence, and a different one is what are the reasons for the lack of open wars between major powers. We are already surpassing peace lapses of XIXth century, because the benefit/risk balances are outrageous

The trouble is that any nuclear power also maintains a strong conventional force, so we can’t investigate the option when its nuclear or nothing.

That is not "investigation". It is especulation until facts demostrates otherwise

Besides, last major conflicts are showing interesting trends that are more and more far from peace dividend and old big armoured manned assets

Honestly, few if any conflicts at all in the past 2 decades seen peer adversaries that could field much in terms of armor. But end of the day anyone who can brings a tank to the fight from Huthis to Ukraine.