US vs China; Who wins and how? -

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg

Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net

Eagle vs Dragon: How the U.S. and Chinese Navies Stack Up

Eagle vs Dragon: How the U.S. and Chinese Navies Stack Up
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org


The United States has been the world’s leading maritime power for decades. However, the U.S. Navy could find itself in China’s wake if current trends continue, analysts say.

Washington and Beijing are now locked in great power competition.

“The biggest challenge for U.S. national security leaders over the next 30 years is the speed and sustainability of the [People’s Republic of China] national effort to deploy a global navy,” said retired Capt. James Fanell, who previously served as head of intelligence for the Pacific Fleet.

The modernization of the Chinese navy, also known as the PLA Navy, has been underway since the 1990s, and its fleet has greatly expanded.

In its annual report on China published last year, the Defense Department stated that its Asian rival has more than 300 surface combatants, submarines, amphibious ships, patrol craft and other specialized vessels.

In 2019, China had a 335-ship fleet, about 55 percent larger than in 2005, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report titled, “China’s Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress.”
 

DiabeticSP

kiwifarms.net
Much like US vs USSR sperging the US has all sorts of dumb toys and the Communists have a fuckton of expendable manpower.

China is the second world shithole that exists only to manufacture incredibly cheap iphones, if they step out of line there won't be any issues of the US asking its allies to help seal club Charlie back into line and put someone back in charge who'll behave and keep the factories pumping.

Notwithstanding a shooting war probably means the US just stops shipping food and the commies starve to death in a few months.
 

Sexy Senior Citizen

Classy.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Fine, Tom, I'll humor you.

Short run, China. It has control of every major global organization, and the US is too pussified to stand up to them. It has an army of celebrities to bolster its public image, and cheap slave labor to attract corporations.

Long run, my money is on the USA. Both the USA and China have declining birthrates. However, while China is systemically exterminating its own people (the Uygurs) the US seems hellbent on importing the entirety of South America. Soon, it'll be the US that has the cheap slave labor, while China is stuck with a geriatric population they need to exterminate or care for.
 

murdered meat bag

kiwifarms.net
Fine, Tom, I'll humor you.

Short run, China. It has control of every major global organization, and the US is too pussified to stand up to them. It has an army of celebrities to bolster its public image, and cheap slave labor to attract corporations.

Long run, my money is on the USA. Both the USA and China have declining birthrates. However, while China is systemically exterminating its own people (the Uygurs) the US seems hellbent on importing the entirety of South America. Soon, it'll be the US that has the cheap slave labor, while China is stuck with a geriatric population they need to exterminate or care for.
cheap labor is exists because the labor doesnt have expensive protections that cost money. surr you can pay juan 5 bucks an hour but what if juans baby anchor complains to th government? juan gets backpay 150% (because cash payments arent real). oops.
 

Nick Gurs

"The Good, The Bad, The Autistic"
kiwifarms.net
Id see a stalemate.

Women and fags holding down any of the good fighters on the NATO side and the Chinese arms and vehicles falling apart due to being made of varying amounts of Chinesium.
 

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
War is the worst case scenario for China, because China owns/is buying out US institutions, allies, and professionals. The goal is to avoid war, or the reversal of any of those processes, especially the subversion of American academia & business that restrictive domestic policies have encouraged. The only peaceful way I can see for the US to reverse this situation would be to instill a national ethic & return to the protectionist/expansionist trade policies it maintained in the early 20th and late 19th century, which is never happening, because it is at odds with native efforts in pursuit of social change. If the quality of life improves across the board and purchasing power goes up, people are far less willing to be radicalized little shits.

The US may win by default anyway, because while Xi Jinping understands this dynamic, he also really really wants to be a "powerful leader" instead of a patient one, and would accept a win for the US if it meant unilateral control over the wreckage of China left behind, Mao-style. The US has telegraphed that it is willing to give him that chance, because no matter how the Chinese-bought academics, alleged left-wingers, and the under-attentive electorate who very reasonably dislike war may protest, essentially all politicians in office are unified on this issue.
Biden was by far the more hawkish on China than Trump (who wanted to use purely economic manipulations to do the job without addressing domestic market failures or waging proxy wars)... and Trump lost. The Space Force is a bipartisan issue and so too now is the navy, despite years of claims to the contrary.
 

7he47r0n

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
First of all, my internationally conscious friends, here's the archived version of the article in the opening post.


Secondly, @Autopsy, the Cold War has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, although subversion of the media and academia are powerful tools, and can cripple a power from within, a superpower like the United States is able to shrug it off fairly easily. Despite our sophistication and technological advancements, might still makes right. Bribing a few dozen professors and instilling some foolish ideas within the youth amounts to little when you have enough firepower, allies, and logistical support to raze half of your infrastructure and military to the ground within the span of a month. Not to mention the crippling and total superiority the United States boast in terms of naval, air, and nuclear arsenals. This is why China's serious efforts are focused almost completely on economic might and internal security.
 

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
Bribing a few dozen professors and instilling some foolish ideas within the youth amounts to little when you have enough firepower, allies, and logistical support to raze half of your infrastructure and military to the ground within the span of a month. Not to mention the crippling and total superiority the United States boast in terms of naval, air, and nuclear arsenals. This is why China's serious efforts are focused almost completely on economic might and internal security.
The allies and logistical support are crawling away too, as is the political will of the people supporting the fight. "The youth" are, after all, the people who will be drafted for that war. This is evidenced by China's continual expansion and violation of international treaty without repercussion or outcry from the modern American public, as well as Russia's decades-long ongoing renege and push to claim territory in Eastern Europe, which the EU seem totally unconcerned with "for some reason."
As I stated in my post, China's serious efforts have been historically on economic might and internal security, because these are areas that will allow China to simply outlast American power, as these are areas America has hobbled itself on and cannot compete in thanks to current policy and ethic.

It simply doesn't matter what they have been doing, because Xi Jinping is not like the other guys. This is why The PLN and Chinese intelligence are in a direct arms race with the US navy and attempting to develop crippling capability to address US air and nuclear arsenals (so as to triumph without an equal amount of investment in those areas). The US' long-term strategy was to phase out funding of traditional warfighting domains and rely on insanely high-tech planes, but that goes poorly when met with massive quantities of modestly high-tech missiles, as it turns out.
Again, that isn't to say China would win, but they don't have to - Xi would want to get into a fight and "not lose," or only lose modestly. It would complete his ascension to wartime leader and forever-tyrant he's been aping for.

Edit: Oh, and make no mistake, "massive quantities of modestly high-tech missiles" would be totally useless if China were attempting to invade the United States. They won't, it's much too far away. It'll be conflict in SEA or with Japan, and those are the wargames that the US regularly loses, not the ones on "home field."
 

7he47r0n

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
"The youth" are, after all, the people who will be drafted for that war.
Isn't that why the United States are importing a lot of young, uneducated people though, as well as making sure that another significant pool of said youngsters (blacks and other minorities) are also pressured to join the military in order to improve their livelihoods?

as well as Russia's decades-long ongoing renege and push to claim territory in Eastern Europe
Russia and its various iterations has always been pushing West, this is nothing new. You'd be harder pressed to point to a time period where they didn't try expanding in that direction. Just because the collapse of the Soviet Union gave pause to their appetites for a few scant decades doesn't mean that they've completely changed their overall geopolitical goals.

As to China's overarching goals - if Xi Jinping really does manages to become the de facto dictator, it would only mean another major course correction in their geopolitics, which means another several decades wasted. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no favourites in this conflict, but so far, in terms of their military performance, China has been a laughingstock since at least the Korean War, and no amount of time, effort, money, technology, or policy changes have so far changed that in any way.
 
Last edited:
Top