What were the years in which they were profitable again? Afghanistan was financially unprofitable from the get-go (I'd say the same about Iraq but then you'd throw out some stupid platitude and scream OIL or something), and trying to create a 'capitalist' take on them shows how little you know about everything under the sun.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
What were the years in which they were profitable again? Afghanistan was financially unprofitable from the get-go (I'd say the same about Iraq but then you'd throw out some stupid platitude and scream OIL or something), and trying to create a 'capitalist' take on them shows how little you know about everything under the sun.
solarz
Brigadier
They were immensely profitable for MIC and oil industries.
Oh victory could be attained if the USA is willing suffer the kind of loses that took the UK from a super power status to a vestigial empire that has trouble trying to project itself while looking like a joke as it currently is ever since is separation from the EU.
If fights have to be determined in a manner that is acceptable to the west (in a military confrontation that requires utter destruction and loss life) then the USA would have beaten China by now given their propensity for breaking agreements to outright assasination of generals that get in their way (such as irans too general) and in general fighting dirty like they usually do when they strike countries that cannot viability fight back and even then they still put up a fight.
But nowadays, the EU could easily see themselves being used as a sacrifice to stall Russia so that the USA can take on China alone, but as we see right now, given that the options are cheaper gas next door or freezing to death from higher gas prices for a significant portion of their populous, things are no so clear cut and note that Russia has stated that should NATO atenot to expand beyond its red lines, nukes will be used and as such, the EU is in a situation where they will bear the brunt of a destruction that will have extremely quickly for no good reason other then to placate the USA and such an even of the kind, the USA will end up losing a massive pawn in the grand scheme of things for no good reason then to push Russia around in their backyard. Also to note is that any attempts by Korea or Japan to aid the US in a fight against China and Russia would result in the complete destruction of both Japan and Korea depending on how many redlines they crossed and also note that North Korea will certainly be happy to launch nukes at South Korea and Japan after all is said then done so the USA expecting much support from both nations in the event of an all out war is simply not going to work and the resulting damages would destroy any chance of the USA from being able to attain cheap electronic goods for years to come
From my prognosis, either the USA collapses in on itself from all its issues or should USA is able to bring its full forces to bear against (and if that I find this to be quite unlikely given all the problems they now face), I believe that it will lead to mutual destruction on both sides with no one benefiting in the end. That is assuming that the USA can bring its full forces to bear in let’s say 1 year without any interruptions and no one noticing the situation for that long without counter measures in place but if the USA loses its dollar prominence and if they cannot fix their own infrastructure and supply chain issues in time for such an all out assault against China with in 1 year of which this is becoming less and less possible given the mounting issues at home that Biden has to deal with but isn’t able to make any head way, any chances of such a scenario that you seem to be believe will happen as a matter of fact may in fact only be a fantasy.
The USA has the military weapons, true but it still needs to maintain them all and the problem I also see if that even that is becoming a problem that any normal country cannot ignore. Right now, the USA is not lead by those deciding things on intellect but most by emotion which is ensuring more and more scandals will occur in the near future. I will concede that China won’t have things
Handled so easily but in the same token, the USA will not either. This game of thrones is a long term game, and should China play their cards right, China does have a good chance of coming out on top, provided they remain wary for any contingencies that USA may have and that China doesn’t make a foolish aggressive move in the mean time. The USA has much to lose and will use any strategy no matter how crazy to remain on top but the more that antagonise their Allies and cause more instability in the world such as the crisis in the Middle East, but this has a great propensity to fail, like how Russia is drive into Chinas arms so definitively when if they had accepted Russia into NATO, China wouldn’t be able to do much.
right now given the leadership in the USA, it’s not a matter of what strategic play the USA could make to come out on top but rather what kind of catastrophic incidents that Blinken and Biden will drive the nation into next while ignoring everything but their power plays against Russia and China
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
LOL, you read something you don't understand and you automatically dismiss it.
You probably think it's just an empty slogan, but in fact, this was the conclusion reached by Mao Zedong after careful deliberation. This was the summary of his conviction that China not only must fight, but that China can achieve victory.
We fought the US in Korea when we had to, we didn't have the luxury or resources we have today to prepare. Your point is valid; we'll always need to enter a fight at the time of the fight, not when we want it to happen, however when there is a choice to prepare more or prepare less, it is always better to prepare more especially if it comes at a sustainable cost.
1. The US is not trading Europe "for Taiwan". The US is trading Europe for robustly crippling China as a geopolitical competitor by winning a war against China.
2. At the end of a war of attrition that China has lost, China will have basically no air and naval forces to speak of, Taiwan would be devastated but able to declare formal independence in a way that China cannot militarily contest, and the US will be able to impose crippling terms of surrender on China that likely would include limits on military capability and technology, if not also civilian technology as well.
In a westpac conflict, the PLA's air capabilities will be fighting against the US in the general western pacific in the first chain and trying to conduct strikes into the second island chain. With the current balance of air fleets in the region, the PLA would be stretched thin to do so.
If we now introduce a second Korean War that requires the PLA to be able to contest air superiority over the Korean peninsula against the ROKAF and US air forces in Korea, then you have to choose between the PLA continuing to fight in the 1IC and 2IC role (which is essential to striking US bases and carriers in the region), or giving air cover to your ground forces.
The PLA cannot do both.
However, the US's pacific forces at large, supported by ROKAF forces, most certainly can do both.
You are talking about Mao like the Christian Evangelicals talk about Jesus. I've noticed this in repeated comments of yours. The explanation is always more or less 'Mao said it so it must be true and shall always be true till the end of time'.
Absolutely delusional. Imagine thinking 'Mao thought it too' is an argument.
You tell him he probably just thinks it's an empty slogan, then go on to prove it's even worse than an empty slogan. It's moronic.
solarz
Brigadier
Sounds like 1990s thinking.
Again, where are those additional US assets coming from?
solarz
Brigadier
Mao Zedong chose to enter Korea despite all opposition. You sound like you would've been another 张东荪.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but... That. Just. Ain't. Happening. If China ever gets to such a place, then we all go straight to Hell.