Might as well call GTA 5, America Simulator at this point..
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Radar operator: SR THE ENEMY HAS LAUNCHED A MISSILE ATTACK OVER OUR BASE, IT WILL HIT US SOON
Commander: Quickly, we need to cast a vote on whatever we should defend ourselves
Commander: Also I receive a note minutes ago from our diversity officials saying that this base is too white, too male and too straight to represent our democracy, so we need to replace half of our radars operators with marginalized they/them people, today.
multi-color haired soldier: Sr the word "people" is discriminatory, it hurts the feeling of those who gender identity is a REAL WOLF or a REAL FIGHTER JET. our democracy needs more proper representation.
Commander: I didn't knew that, WAIT, ARE WE GONNA GET CANCELLED AGAIN? because I still have PSTD from the last cancelling.
Meanwhile:
Last edited:
With my tinfoil hat on... don't discount a false flag by the CIA to assassinate her and then install the current VP and egg him on to declare independence.
Selling hand me down weapons is not enough to trigger an armed response. The US hasn't sunk Chinese freight shipping despite China allegedly importing fentanyl ingredients to the US for a decade.
The idea itself of giving great flexibility and equality within each unit is not a bad one in itself.
For example the Soviets experimented with abolishing military ranks, and China arguably perfected it in the Korean war. Since then, the ability for indivudal initiative is something that has benefitted the PLA in all its conflicts, and something that was further taught to Vietnam with great effect during their own struggle for national freedom.
The question is, if America has been able to achieve that type of professionalism.
There's a huge difference between delegating tasks to competent smaller units and allowing troops to rampage freely.
Within a true decentralised framework, soldiers must be patriotic and motivated, because they must be fearless against any odds.
Calling in an AC130 on a wedding party or deciding on the spot to spray a block of civilian houses with your mounted machine gun because your squad thought they saw something weird isn't "Mission command", it's just rampaging due to fear and believing yourself to be smarter than you are due to main character syndrome.
An example of creative response that actually makes an army able to beat the odds would be: the enemy controls the local air, theyre shelling you with more shells than you can throw back, they have more soldiers than you. Their missiles are raining down on your airfields and sniping your command posts. Still, your command needs you to advance and destroy the enemy. It's unfair, it's impossible, your unit won't come out of it unscathed if you'll survive at all.
Can American rank and file soldiers do this type of fighting?
Any force can be creative when they're fighting only easy battles against opponents unable to resist. What determines true toughness is if they can be practical when they're on the back foot. An army that can't deal with setbacks is just a horde.
For example the Soviets experimented with abolishing military ranks, and China arguably perfected it in the Korean war. Since then, the ability for indivudal initiative is something that has benefitted the PLA in all its conflicts, and something that was further taught to Vietnam with great effect during their own struggle for national freedom.
The question is, if America has been able to achieve that type of professionalism.
There's a huge difference between delegating tasks to competent smaller units and allowing troops to rampage freely.
Within a true decentralised framework, soldiers must be patriotic and motivated, because they must be fearless against any odds.
Calling in an AC130 on a wedding party or deciding on the spot to spray a block of civilian houses with your mounted machine gun because your squad thought they saw something weird isn't "Mission command", it's just rampaging due to fear and believing yourself to be smarter than you are due to main character syndrome.
An example of creative response that actually makes an army able to beat the odds would be: the enemy controls the local air, theyre shelling you with more shells than you can throw back, they have more soldiers than you. Their missiles are raining down on your airfields and sniping your command posts. Still, your command needs you to advance and destroy the enemy. It's unfair, it's impossible, your unit won't come out of it unscathed if you'll survive at all.
Can American rank and file soldiers do this type of fighting?
Any force can be creative when they're fighting only easy battles against opponents unable to resist. What determines true toughness is if they can be practical when they're on the back foot. An army that can't deal with setbacks is just a horde.
That's the crux when it comes to China's geopolitical competition with the rest of the world and particularly the West.
Personally I tend to refer to Kishore Mahbubani's assessments where he judges China to be one of the coolest and most rational actors in the world stage when it comes to geopolitical contests, whether it be on trade, tech, human rights etc.
Per the professor the one thing China would act emotionally and absolutely would not hesitate to trigger a war is over Taiwan. This is something the ruling establishment at D.C. may understand, but not necessarily appreciate. The danger ofc is the US expecting Taiwan to be just like any geopolitical card game the Americans are so fond of that they can deal China akin to the trade war or the Quad/AUKUS that they can provoke a response from the Chinese just to see what that response looks like, like it doesn't affect them in the slightest.
Except with Taiwan there's only ever gonna be one response from China, and the US is still messing with that fire like it won't engulf them and the whole world with them.
Regarding Kasparov...
Isn't Bobby Fischer the cunt who congratulated "Mr. Bin Laden for attacking the Jewnited States of America" despite being Jewish himself? What an all around stable genius.
Based man
I just feel that China is attacking the wrong side here. We know that the US is full of evil opportunists. If the HK local government invited Pelosi she be would flying there too.
On the other hand, if all 27 EU leaders were invited to visit Taiwan on the same day, would China threaten to intercept all of their planes as well? What about any other world leaders?
The problem is clearly the Taiwanese government. They can try and escalate the situation almost at will.
If China had to choose between eliminating Pelosi or the Tsai government they should certainly pick the latter.