Miscellaneous News

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
Interesting. Coincidentally, I had just watched Scott Ritter and Carl Zha arguing passionately over the US vs China war fighting mindset. In that argument Carl Zha also brought up this Mao quote that men, not atom bombs wins wars.

What started this argument was that Carl Zha dismissed the power and relevance of the US today too casually. Ritter, while not a fan of the current US government today is still a boomer, and that triggered him. He ranted about USA #1 for awhile, and after calming down, he said that he is warning people around the world to not push the US into a corner too much too soon. Because there are too many nutjobs like Lindsey Graham and Trump in the halls of power, and they might just go crazy and throw nukes around. But Carl Zha doubts the US nuke threat, called it a bluff, and used that Mao quote too casually. Both Ritter and Zha have flaws in their argument. Ritter thinks that China is getting cocky and is out to get America now. Not true at all. He still doesn't understand China enough. While Zha just dismisses the US threat of war with China too casually. The Americans may be cowards, but their military is still very formidable against China. Now is not the time to dismiss them as a threat. Never underestimate your adversary. Don't make the same big mistake as the Qing Dynasty.

Mao was not wrong, but sometimes people do throw his quotes around too casually. It is true that men win wars, not nukes, but just don't dismiss the nuke threat too easily. Nukes are still controlled by men. The US didn't nuke China during the Mao era because it was just not worth it. Today, it's a different US and China. There are no more WW2 veterans in charge in the US. And China is poised to overtake the US economy and overturn over 200 years of Anglo-European domination of the world. For today, it might just be worth it to nuke China out, if the Western world have already accepted that they are doomed. Ritter was arguing to not dismiss that threat too casually. Because there are preemptive nuclear strike plans against Russia and China and the US is getting more desperate. He mentioned that the US neocons and haters still think that they have a massive warhead count advantage over China. They wet dream a surprise preemptive first strike on China because they think that the US might just fare better in a post nuclear exchange with China. Nobody survives nuclear war. But there are too many idiots in America who think they can.

I have brought up this same neocon viewpoint here about 4-years ago, in the middle of the Covid pandemic. I had argued with some people about the need for China to actually build a credible nuclear deterrence against the US. What China had in 2020 was enough to deter India, but it was still far from enough to deter the US. It still is today. Trump and his MAGA Republicans would sacrifice millions of Americans to Covid, so that they could show the middle finger to China's success at containing Covid. So why should they not do it with nuclear war if they were desperate enough? China should not gamble on the assumption that the leaders in the US are still reasonable people. Minimal deterrence is no longer enough. China has to attempt to achieve parity with the US nuclear arsenal. Only then, could China's deterrence be taken seriously by the American neocons. The good news is that the Chinese leadership is doing exactly that, by expanding its arsenal to 1000 warheads first. I personally believe that they'll go further after that, until they match with the US.

I still remember arguing with one idiot who argued vehemently that China's nuclear arsenal is a just waste of money. That China should actually spend that money on more economic development. If China would not have nukes at all, that'll better. This idealistic idiot is either high on something, or he is actually a hanjian pretending to be concerned for China.

In my opinion, although I've been always supportive of the Chinese government's moves and policies, as you all know, the biggest mistake thus far they ever made was not having enough nukes ALREADY by now. And not building them fast enough now, and not being 'showy' enough with them in general. They probably thought that being "restrained" enough in nuclear policy would get them some points in the RoW, but I think this is probably a total non-factor. But, also the US nuking China over some pride is delusional. The oligarchs that rule the US couldn't give a damn about ideology like that. If their money/power/status is sure to be still saved or promised in some form and to a certain extent even after Chinese victory in the war, they would accept that. Better that, than being dead for some bullshit reason. On the other hand, I would be more worried about Russia, for example, doing some nuclear global armageddon due to nationalism than the US tbh, as they are a real nation, not some artificial quasi-entity like the US.
 
Last edited:

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Interesting. Coincidentally, I had just watched Scott Ritter and Carl Zha arguing passionately over the US vs China war fighting mindset. In that argument Carl Zha also brought up this Mao quote that men, not atom bombs wins wars.

What started this argument was that Carl Zha dismissed the power and relevance of the US today too casually. Ritter, while not a fan of the current US government today is still a boomer, and that triggered him. He ranted about USA #1 for awhile, and after calming down, he said that he is warning people around the world to not push the US into a corner too much too soon. Because there are too many nutjobs like Lindsey Graham and Trump in the halls of power, and they might just go crazy and throw nukes around. But Carl Zha doubts the US nuke threat, called it a bluff, and used that Mao quote too casually. Both Ritter and Zha have flaws in their argument. Ritter thinks that China is getting cocky and is out to get America now. Not true at all. He still doesn't understand China enough. While Zha just dismisses the US threat of war with China too casually. The Americans may be cowards, but their military is still very formidable against China. Now is not the time to dismiss them as a threat. Never underestimate your adversary. Don't make the same big mistake as the Qing Dynasty.

Mao was not wrong, but sometimes people do throw his quotes around too casually. It is true that men win wars, not nukes, but just don't dismiss the nuke threat too easily. Nukes are still controlled by men. The US didn't nuke China during the Mao era because it was just not worth it. Today, it's a different US and China. There are no more WW2 veterans in charge in the US. And China is poised to overtake the US economy and overturn over 200 years of Anglo-European domination of the world. For today, it might just be worth it to nuke China out, if the Western world have already accepted that they are doomed. Ritter was arguing to not dismiss that threat too casually. Because there are preemptive nuclear strike plans against Russia and China and the US is getting more desperate. He mentioned that the US neocons and haters still think that they have a massive warhead count advantage over China. They wet dream a surprise preemptive first strike on China because they think that the US might just fare better in a post nuclear exchange with China. Nobody survives nuclear war. But there are too many idiots in America who think they can.

I have brought up this same neocon viewpoint here about 4-years ago, in the middle of the Covid pandemic. I had argued with some people about the need for China to actually build a credible nuclear deterrence against the US. What China had in 2020 was enough to deter India, but it was still far from enough to deter the US. It still is today. Trump and his MAGA Republicans would sacrifice millions of Americans to Covid, so that they could show the middle finger to China's success at containing Covid. So why should they not do it with nuclear war if they were desperate enough? China should not gamble on the assumption that the leaders in the US are still reasonable people. Minimal deterrence is no longer enough. China has to attempt to achieve parity with the US nuclear arsenal. Only then, could China's deterrence be taken seriously by the American neocons. The good news is that the Chinese leadership is doing exactly that, by expanding its arsenal to 1000 warheads first. I personally believe that they'll go further after that, until they match with the US.

I still remember arguing with one idiot who argued vehemently that China's nuclear arsenal is a just waste of money. That China should actually spend that money on more economic development. If China would not have nukes at all, that'll better. This idealistic idiot is either high on something, or he is actually a hanjian pretending to be concerned for China.
That person has has too many "HOT POT" that his brain got cooked
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
I think we are not far from an era which US nuclear capability is obsolete. As far as we know, US has no TEL. Their silo based weapons are extremely outdated, most failed last time I checked. Their air defense network is lacking/non-existent. The only good platforms are subs. Once China secures naval supremacy it is over for US. US in current state cannot innovate in missiles anymore. The corruption is too deep. Therefore neither the people nor the atom bomb in US will pose an existential threat in couple years. China will come up on top in a nuclear exchange. Whatever we have lost in the exchange, US will have to compensate. By that I mean all of its territory and its ally's would do.
Among the nuclear triad of the US, their sea leg is their primary and most effective threat. They have the whole Pacific ocean to hide their Ohio SSBNs. No matter how much China could dominate the Western Pacific. Finding any SSBNs there is still a massive challenge. Worse still, the Trident missiles have sufficient range to hit the Chinese mainland even when launched from the middle of the Pacific. SSBNs are the most survivable leg of the US nuclear triad. And let's not forget about the US Navy. China's warplan right now is to defeat the US navy in the Western Pacific, but there are still little follow up plans for the remaining USN ships left outside of of the Western Pacific. The PLAN's current force projection power is still years alway from being able to threaten Hawaii. So it's very ambitious to assume that China can dominate the Pacific Ocean in just a couple of years.

SSBNs are notorious for being hard to find. Not because it's impossible, but because the seas and the oceans are so vast. Even a single SSBN is a massive threat. The US is attempting to box in China behind the 1st Island Chain because it is afraid of China's own SSBN fleet. That is why I feel that China should modernize and expand its own SSBN fleet. For now, TELs are the next best thing, and China was right to invest in them until better SSBNs are deployed. Nevertheless, any SSBN out at sea is still a vastly greater threat than multiple TELs in a limited geographical land area. But no matter what platforms China uses to launch nukes, a more urgent thing to do right now is to expand the strategic nuclear force.

China should never back down to US might. But let's be realistic. China should focus on rapidly strengthening itself for now. And in the meantime, manage the US's decline with diplomacy and guile so that they don't go crazy too soon. China is doing that right now. Weakening the US dollar, it's main pillar of strength, but not too quickly that it creates panic among the US elites.
 
Last edited:

_killuminati_

Junior Member
Registered Member
first you are mis representing. when were that place under direct military control of House of Saud?
Arabic =/= House of Saud.
Who is doing the misrepresenting now?
Masjid al-Aqsa was a possession of the Hejazi Sharifs of Mecca. They lost it and never recovered.


In my opinion, although I've been always supportive of the Chinese government's moves and policies, as you all know, the biggest mistake thus far they ever made was not having enough nukes ALREADY by now. And not building them fast enough now, and not being 'showy' enough with them in general. They probably thought that being "restrained" enough in nuclear policy would get them some points in the RoW, but I think this is probably a total non-factor. But, also the US nuking China over some pride is delusional. The oligarchs that rule the US couldn't give a damn about ideology like that. If their money/power/status is sure to be still saved or promised in some form and to a certain extent even after Chinese victory in the war, they would accept that. Better that, than being dead for some bullshit reason. On the other hand, I would be more worried about Russia, for example, doing some nuclear global armageddon due to nationalism than the US tbh, as they are a real nation, not some artificial quasi-entity like the US.
Russia (and everyone else except US) doesn't have a history of deliberately using nukes on civilians. Americans today, overwhelmingly, justify the use of nukes on civilians. Take a moment to let that sink in.

If you ask the odd American about it today, he will tell you "it ended the war", essentially implying if a nuke can end a conflict then we will use it. The problem is ... it is illogical because the premise (nuking) is being justified by a result which technically can go in any direction (end or no end of conflict).

The nuclear threat from US is real, even if you possess nukes of your own. And we know how much US cares about it's own civilians (i.e. not much).

I think if US is placed in such a situation where the hegemon is at risk of or is being dismantled/overtaken, they will use nukes first.

Best course of action is avoid major military escalations and let the hegemon erode on it's own as it is doing right now.
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
China is clearly upping their nuke arsenal, so no need to worry about that.
Yes, that is true.

As for the threat of US nukes, well, it isn't as big and threatening as people think (unlikely to change the course of war for US).
It won't stop any US defeat. But for some of their politicians to even talk about using them without any pushback from fellow politicians. It's not a comfortable trend to observe.

And there is multiple reasons for this (from what I've gathered, All their minuteman 3 tests in recent decade has FAILED lol, it does really put in question the ability of their landbased nukes.
Sure you can go on with subs, but it still means a big decrease in nukes).
US's land-based nukes is their weakest leg. Their sea-based nukes is still their most effective and primary threat. They have 14 Ohio SSBNs. Each carrying 20 Trident missiles, if we trust them to adhere to START. 24 Tridents if they cheat. Each Trident carries about 8-14 warheads and decoys depending on loadout. That's possibly more than 100 warheads per sub. Assuming 1/3 of the US Ohio fleet is available for patrol, that's 4-5 boats out there, ready to threaten China and Russia. That's possibly about as much warheads or more out at sea as China's current entire declared stockpile. That's a serious threat.

Other than that, there is also missile AD, where we don't know the complete status for China (shouldn't underestimate though).
China's ABM should do it's part to shoot down US warheads. But they are no guarantees. Not even the US ABMs are able to completely stop a Chinese second strike.

And well, nukes against cities aren't as effective and destructive as often portrayed (yes, would still result in lots of deaths, but nowhere near fallout levels or even less destructive protrayals).
US nuclear warplans tend to put dozens of warheads on each major city. Whatever we think about the effectiveness of nukes on Chinese cities, it's better for that to not happen at all. China should strive to build sufficient deterrence first.
 

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member
WTO rules against China
US politicians:
GREAT, China need to abide by WTO rules. This is not a jungle, the rule of law MF.

WTO rules against the US
US politicians:
This is unfair, muh national security, we democracy, China no. The rules shouldn't apply to us, we will cut your money.

International Court rules against China
US politicians:
YEAH, ABIDE MF, RULE OF LAW. MUH INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORDER.

International Court rules against the US or an Ally.
US Politicians:
Nope, no jurisdiction, overreaching, we are going to sanction your judges, these courts are only for black africans and thugs like Putin, the rule of law doesn't apply to us.

They two first courses to take to become a Western politician in clown university.

Hypocrisy 101
Gasligthing 101

1716570640125.png

1716570615057.png
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
@chongqinghotpot
Lol! Oh.,.. that guy.

That idiot that I argued with years ago was a different person. But he also likes writing quotes in Chinese too. He got kicked out of SDF before @chongqinghotpot arrived. So who knows, it could be the same dude. Chances are, he could be coming back to SDF again. We'll know it when he's back. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top