Despite Washington’s confidence, US war with Iran would be disastrous

[Jingthing]

56 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently 100 countries supported a ceasefire in the recent Security council debate, in which the US was the only country against it. Britain abstained, shame on them.

The US is apparently the only country not in favor of helping Hamas win. 

[Hawaiian]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What strength would that be?

 

Why do you think Canada, Japan, UK, France would join a conflict in SEA? They are already struggling to supply Ukraine, and in the case of Britain, how would they even get to SEA? They no longer have bases there and their navy isn't much any more. Only the US has the naval capacity and I doubt enough spare capacity for Canadians, Brits etc.

Japan is still basically a self defense force, and too close to China to go far. Sth Korea? Unlikely as they have a nuclear armed enemy to the north

 

Worth remembering Canada, France and Britain did not join the war in Vietnam.

Some of these countries are not pushovers.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-world-most-powerful-militaries-2023-firepower-us-china-russia-2023-5?utm

 

France gave up on Viet Nam after Dien Bien Phu.  If I recall right South Korea sent in 350,000 troops and the Philippines sent medics. 

Japan has a beef with China over the uninhabited Senkaku Islands and know that Okinawa would be in harms way.  Plus, the U.S. has a bunch of military bases scattered through out Japan.  The U.S Seventh Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka and Okinawa has Camp Butler and Kadena AFB. 

[sirineou]

The US only fights the little guys. For 2023, Iran is ranked 17 in military power in the world. 

How many wars do you think the US can fight at the same time?

How much will you bet that if he US attacks Iran, China will take the opportunity to take Taiwan . Russia  consolidate its borders and who knows who else take what else. Perhaps North korea make a move on the south? 

The US, unless it is existential would never get in a major war without a quick exit strategy if nessacery. 

All these things a war gamed out.  

[Hawaiian]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The US only fights the little guys. For 2023, Iran is ranked 17 in military power in the world. 

How many wars do you think the US can fight at the same time?

How much will you bet that if he US attacks Iran, China will take the opportunity to take Taiwan . Russia  consolidate its borders and who knows who else take what else. Perhaps North korea make a move on the south? 

The US, unless it is existential would never get in a major war without a quick exit strategy if nessacery. 

All these things a war gamed out.  

The U.S. will avoid a direct confrontation with Iran.  The Mossad has been behind the recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and are most likely attempting to sabotage the infrastructure supporting Natanz.

If China invades Taiwan, India might be bold enough to move on the disputed border area.

You and I can make suppositions, but in the end that is all they are.

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The US only fights the little guys. For 2023, Iran is ranked 17 in military power in the world. 

How many wars do you think the US can fight at the same time?

How much will you bet that if he US attacks Iran, China will take the opportunity to take Taiwan . Russia  consolidate its borders and who knows who else take what else. Perhaps North korea make a move on the south? 

The US, unless it is existential would never get in a major war without a quick exit strategy if nessacery. 

All these things a war gamed out.  

 

He said knowingly....

 

Maybe the 'big guys' are too smart to actually challenge the USA.

How many wars do you imagine the USA is fighting right now? I mean actual wars.

I will bet that China would seat back and do absolutely nothing. Your sky-is-falling act ain't gonna happen.

 

Also, what war against Iran would that be? The one you dreamed up support the hyperbole argument? News Flash: There is no Iran-USA war.

Even if the USA was to carry attacks against Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Yemen there wouldn't be an all out war with Iran.

That's because the Iranian leadership is not suicidal.

 

Go back to earlier topics on this right after 7/10.

The scaremongering about a major regional conflagration, the talk about WWIII. None of that happened.

Some people seem disappointed. I'm not.

 

 

[Danderman123]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What strength would that be?

 

Why do you think Canada, Japan, UK, France would join a conflict in SEA? They are already struggling to supply Ukraine, and in the case of Britain, how would they even get to SEA? They no longer have bases there and their navy isn't much any more. Only the US has the naval capacity and I doubt enough spare capacity for Canadians, Brits etc.

Japan is still basically a self defense force, and too close to China to go far. Sth Korea? Unlikely as they have a nuclear armed enemy to the north

 

Worth remembering Canada, France and Britain did not join the war in Vietnam.

It depends on the nature of the conflict in SEA.

 

If China attempted invasion of Taiwan, it would go very badly for them.

[Hawaiian]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It depends on the nature of the conflict in SEA.

 

If China attempted invasion of Taiwan, it would go very badly for them.

Not just badly, but most likely a disaster.  Even if an invasion were successful, the toll on its military would make it difficult to both maintain an effective occupation and maintain law and order back on the mainland. .  Their economy would be in shambles with vital imports of foodstuffs seriously curtailed possibly causing anarchy among a hungry population.

The Chinese economy is much worse shape than many realize.

Many provincial government treasuries are depleted and they are saddled with an unbelievable amount of debt.  Chances of the central government bailing them out are slim.  China's BRI is not doing well either.  Italy is pulling out.  The CPEC highway servicing the Pakistani port of Gwadar is under attack by the Taliban.  Back in Afghanistan, the Tailban are having second thoughts of cooperating with China.  If you add this all up with the property sector defaults and commercial/shadow banking problems it doesn't look good for Xi and his CCP.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Some of these countries are not pushovers.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-world-most-powerful-militaries-2023-firepower-us-china-russia-2023-5?utm

 

France gave up on Viet Nam after Dien Bien Phu.  If I recall right South Korea sent in 350,000 troops and the Philippines sent medics. 

Japan has a beef with China over the uninhabited Senkaku Islands and know that Okinawa would be in harms way.  Plus, the U.S. has a bunch of military bases scattered through out Japan.  The U.S Seventh Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka and Okinawa has Camp Butler and Kadena AFB. 

I'm well aware of the French in Indo China, and the Dien Bien Phu disaster. They also had fiascos in other colonised countries eg Algeria. That didn't mean that they were unable to return to Vietnam as part of a western alliance, but chose not to.

 

The South Koreans were a force to be feared in Vietnam.

 

However, I doubt either would wish to be involved in a China vs America conflict now. I can't see any benefit to either in doing so.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It depends on the nature of the conflict in SEA.

 

If China attempted invasion of Taiwan, it would go very badly for them.

One hopes so.

[thaibeachlovers]

47 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

If you add this all up with the property sector defaults and commercial/shadow banking problems it doesn't look good for Xi and his CCP.

One can only hope that it turns out badly for Xi.

However, a chaotic China would be catastrophic for the West, now that we are so dependent on Chinese exploited workers for so much of what we consume.

It would be worse than catastrophic for NZ that depends on China far too much for overseas income, and probably Australia as well if they can't sell dirt to China any more.

[Hawaiian]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm well aware of the French in Indo China, and the Dien Bien Phu disaster. They also had fiascos in other colonised countries eg Algeria. That didn't mean that they were unable to return to Vietnam as part of a western alliance, but chose not to.

 

The South Koreans were a force to be feared in Vietnam.

 

However, I doubt either would wish to be involved in a China vs America conflict now. I can't see any benefit to either in doing so.

South Korea's growing trade deficit with China is causing problems for the Yoon Suk Yeol government and China is not happy with South Korea's improving relationship with the U.S.

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/whats-causing-rise-china-south-korea-tensions

[Hawaiian]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One can only hope that it turns out badly for Xi.

However, a chaotic China would be catastrophic for the West, now that we are so dependent on Chinese exploited workers for so much of what we consume.

It would be worse than catastrophic for NZ that depends on China far too much for overseas income, and probably Australia as well if they can't sell dirt to China any more.

Maybe you have not noticed the shift.  More nations are in the process of decoupling from China with major corporations moving some of their operations to Viet Nam, India and elsewhere.  Some have cut their ties entirely. The rift between Australia and China is nothing new.  The iron ore and other minerals will not rot.  Sooner or latter other buyers will show up.  New Zealand has only themselves to blame.  They have alienated many of their western-oriented allies.

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm well aware of the French in Indo China, and the Dien Bien Phu disaster. They also had fiascos in other colonised countries eg Algeria. That didn't mean that they were unable to return to Vietnam as part of a western alliance, but chose not to.

 

The South Koreans were a force to be feared in Vietnam.

 

However, I doubt either would wish to be involved in a China vs America conflict now. I can't see any benefit to either in doing so.

The French were wise in not going back.  They did not want to be embarrassed again.  This does not preclude them from offering a semblance of support for the U.S. and her allies if things boil over into a conflict with China.  Much depends on who is the French president at the time.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/10/2023 at 10:20 AM, Hawaiian said:

  New Zealand has only themselves to blame.  They have alienated many of their western-oriented allies.

No disagreement with me on that. We had a rotten government that has been booted. Perhaps things will change now for the better.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/10/2023 at 10:30 AM, Hawaiian said:

The French were wise in not going back.  They did not want to be embarrassed again.  This does not preclude them from offering a semblance of support for the U.S. and her allies if things boil over into a conflict with China.  Much depends on who is the French president at the time.

Agree with that.

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 12/4/2023 at 1:55 PM, LosLobo said:

If you are referring to Biden, I suggest 'yellow' is preferrable to an orange one with bones spurs.

Where did joe serve?

[thaibeachlovers]

53 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Where did joe serve?

You probably know already, but Joe didn't.

He was pretty keen on voting for other people to go to war though.

 

https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/joe-biden-military-service/

No, the current President of the United States never served in the military.

[placnx]

On 12/9/2023 at 2:01 PM, Hawaiian said:

Coming from you, this comment is no surprise.  I think peace through strength applies here.  Xi is not ready to take on most of Southeast Asia plus Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, France and the U.S. in an all out war.  China's adversary, India is also beefing up its military in the event of hostilities.

The push back against China's BRI is just beginning with Italy pulling out and the situation in Pakistan becoming untenable.  Even the Taliban in Afghanistan are having second thoughts. 

Yes things are heating up, but China's troubling economy, unexplained health scare and massive debt may cause China to pull in it's horns.

 

The way things are now, the Taiwan operation would be over before the international community has time to have a meeting. SE Asia is not about to have a war with China.

 

I agree that the BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) is faltering, but the bad economic situation in China might incentivize Xi to create a distracting "win", the take over of Taiwan, similar to Putin's takeover of Crimea in 2014. There are elections in Taiwan next month, but Xi might wait until after the US election to see whether Trump wins. Taiwan is woefully ill prepared for a CHinese attack, and it will take the US many years to upgrade its navy and increase production capacity of advanced weapons.

[placnx]

On 12/9/2023 at 2:11 PM, Jingthing said:

It's disgusting that you are clearly demonizing the word Zionist. I assume you're for a Palestinian political liberation movement that leads to a state of their own, right? So why would you deride the Zionist movement which is about the same thing for the Jewish people? 

Perhaps you only opposed the extremist right wing faction of Zionism, as do I. 

They are not the same in the sense that they are not morally equivalent. Zionism had this idea of a "land without people for a people without land".  This is a false premise. It's implementation meant ethnic cleansing from 1947 until today.

[Jingthing]

23 minutes ago, placnx said:

They are not the same in the sense that they are not morally equivalent. Zionism had this idea of a "land without people for a people without land".  This is a false premise. It's implementation meant ethnic cleansing from 1947 until today.

That is total B.S. to suggest that was the core motivation of Zionism.

I have no grounds for discussion with any person with such a narrow twisted view of the history of that political ideology and of the ANCIENT history of the relation between the land of Israel and the Jewish people (INDIGINOUS to Israel). 

It's just one ignorant insult after another from such people.

It's funny.

The same people are for a national liberation movement for Palestinian Arabs (an identity that didn't even exist until Yassar Arafat invented it). 

The hypocrisy and clear anti-Jewish sentiment is galling. 

 

[scottiejohn]

52 minutes ago, placnx said:

The way things are now, the Taiwan operation would be over before the international community has time to have a meeting.

Are you trying to say that it would be easy for China to invade Taiwan?

There is little point in China taking over a completely obliterated Taiwan by invasion!

First it would be very difficult to hide the build up of the forces required to carry out such an invasion and the west would react!

 

Secondly Taiwan does not have many "Normandy/D Day" type of landing beaches!

Taiwan has rugged and indented shorelines, mountainous topography, and a populace with intimate acquaintanceship with its strategic features.  Its armed forces will turn them to maximum effect along with many anti sea and air invasion defences including pre-laid remote controlled anti ship sea mines on the approaches to the few suitable beaches and harbours!

 

The most dangerous and costly form of warfare is an assault from the sea! 

 

Taiwan’s Geography Will Greatly Complicate a Chinese Invasion | The National Interest

 

[Hawaiian]

16 hours ago, placnx said:

The way things are now, the Taiwan operation would be over before the international community has time to have a meeting. SE Asia is not about to have a war with China.

 

I agree that the BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) is faltering, but the bad economic situation in China might incentivize Xi to create a distracting "win", the take over of Taiwan, similar to Putin's takeover of Crimea in 2014. There are elections in Taiwan next month, but Xi might wait until after the US election to see whether Trump wins. Taiwan is woefully ill prepared for a CHinese attack, and it will take the US many years to upgrade its navy and increase production capacity of advanced weapons.

Underestimating an enemy often results in a long, costly war that can end in a stalemate rather than a speedy decisive win.  Putin seems to have made that miscalculation.  Many military analysts were surprised at the resistance put up by Ukraine and all of the economic and military support by western nations.  Then there are the economic sanctions that are slowly having a devastating effect.

Although Xi is just as ruthless and daring as his Russian counterpart, he is a lot more cautious.  Obviously, he is looking at all of the possible scenarios should China invade Taiwan.

 

Just because the Chinese have a much more superior military force does not ensure a quick, decisive victory.  There are many formidable challenges when conducting an amphibious operation.

Seven hundred something years ago the Mongols set out to conquer and subdue the Japanese.  Twice they failed, defeated by the weather.  D-Day, in 1944, could have also been a disaster for the Allies.  Fortunately for them, the weather cooperated.

Discounting who would come to Taiwan's aid is debatable.  If China were to make preemptive strikes on U.S. bases in Japan, the Philippines and elsewhere it is a given that the U.S. would immediately respond.  The Australians have also indicated they would get involved.  As to who else would join in depends how on long the hostilities last.  If China does badly, then maybe others will join in the fray. 

Let's hope that Xi realizes no matter what, China will pay a heavy price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hawaiian]

20 hours ago, placnx said:

The way things are now, the Taiwan operation would be over before the international community has time to have a meeting. SE Asia is not about to have a war with China.

 

I agree that the BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) is faltering, but the bad economic situation in China might incentivize Xi to create a distracting "win", the take over of Taiwan, similar to Putin's takeover of Crimea in 2014. There are elections in Taiwan next month, but Xi might wait until after the US election to see whether Trump wins. Taiwan is woefully ill prepared for a CHinese attack, and it will take the US many years to upgrade its navy and increase production capacity of advanced weapons.

Quality vs. quantity.  The other day an Israeli F-35 fighter jet shot down a Houthi cruise missile.  The plane's highly advanced tracking system plus the experience of the Israeli pilot made this possible.  It is highly unlikely the Chinese could accomplish a similar feat. 

While Taiwan may be "woefully ill prepared for a CHinese attack," the U.S. is not. 

Former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said, "You go to war with the army you have, and not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."  I believe the same thing applies to the U.S. Navy and Air Force.  There is nothing equivalent to combat experience.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

The plane's highly advanced tracking system plus the experience of the Israeli pilot made this possible. 

plus the experience of the Israeli pilot

 

I'm puzzled as to how the israeli pilot has more experience than a Chinese pilot? Am I mistaken in thinking that it's been long enough ago since the israeli air force was in combat that all those pilots will have retired from flying long ago?

The israelis were not involved in either of the Gulf wars, and the last war in which aircraft were involved in combat was in 1967. Am I wrong?

[Hawaiian]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

plus the experience of the Israeli pilot

 

I'm puzzled as to how the israeli pilot has more experience than a Chinese pilot? Am I mistaken in thinking that it's been long enough ago since the israeli air force was in combat that all those pilots will have retired from flying long ago?

The israelis were not involved in either of the Gulf wars, and the last war in which aircraft were involved in combat was in 1967. Am I wrong?

I misspoke.  They may lack the combat experience, but appear to be better trained.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-might-have-stealth-fighters-how-good-are-pilots-who-fly-them-59147?utm 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force_Flight_Academy?utm

[Hawaiian]

10 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

 

Sorry.  Problem with link on Chinese fighter pilots.  Worked when I tested it.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

plus the experience of the Israeli pilot

 

I'm puzzled as to how the israeli pilot has more experience than a Chinese pilot? Am I mistaken in thinking that it's been long enough ago since the israeli air force was in combat that all those pilots will have retired from flying long ago?

The israelis were not involved in either of the Gulf wars, and the last war in which aircraft were involved in combat was in 1967. Am I wrong?

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

You are, indeed, wrong.

 

There was wars on 1973, 1982, and other more limited operations since. Long range strikes, reconnaissance missions and whatnot.

 

Flying training missions with clear parameters, and much more regulated conditions is not the same as flying operational missions.

 

And even training missions are not structured the same way for all air forces. Often, air forces of authoritarian/dictatorial countries are allowed much less freedom regarding training and operation, regime rightly suspecting the potential to become a danger to its own suitability. This tends to have a negative effect on capabilities and morale.

 

The IAF heavily relies on reserve duty pilots, bolstering both numbers and experience. This featured on the protest movement against the government, with hundreds announcing they would suspend their (voluntary) service.

 

From what I know about the Chinese Air force, it's tightly controlled by the party. There are signs of modernization in terms of training missions and so on, but still a ways to go. Their strong point would be numbers, and some of their new gear looks the job (but not battle tested - same as the pilots and supporting crews).

 

 

[Hawaiian]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

You are, indeed, wrong.

 

There was wars on 1973, 1982, and other more limited operations since. Long range strikes, reconnaissance missions and whatnot.

 

Flying training missions with clear parameters, and much more regulated conditions is not the same as flying operational missions.

 

And even training missions are not structured the same way for all air forces. Often, air forces of authoritarian/dictatorial countries are allowed much less freedom regarding training and operation, regime rightly suspecting the potential to become a danger to its own suitability. This tends to have a negative effect on capabilities and morale.

 

The IAF heavily relies on reserve duty pilots, bolstering both numbers and experience. This featured on the protest movement against the government, with hundreds announcing they would suspend their (voluntary) service.

 

From what I know about the Chinese Air force, it's tightly controlled by the party. There are signs of modernization in terms of training missions and so on, but still a ways to go. Their strong point would be numbers, and some of their new gear looks the job (but not battle tested - same as the pilots and supporting crews).

 

 

Agree.  The CCP not only control the military, but just about every sector of the economy.  Because the party demands results and dictates how soon they want results, they often get an inferior product.  The new Dalian underwater tunnel that was designed to last 100 years flooded 15 days after opening.  Even BRI projects outside the country have ended in failure or disaster.

One can only assume these problems will also pop up in their military hardware.  State of the art military hardware is only effective if it works as designed.

Yes, the U.S. military has been plagued with similar problems, but too many failures gets extra scrutiny by Congress.  The U.S. also has a competitive bidding process with encourages innovation and the latest technology.  While far from perfect, it usually produces a better product than the Chinese can put out.  Why do you think China spends so much time and effort on industrial espionage?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

I misspoke.  They may lack the combat experience, but appear to be better trained.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-might-have-stealth-fighters-how-good-are-pilots-who-fly-them-59147?utm 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force_Flight_Academy?utm

Thank you for the correction. It would not surprise me if they are sent to Top Gun in the US for training.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

You are, indeed, wrong.

 

There was wars on 1973, 1982, and other more limited operations since. Long range strikes, reconnaissance missions and whatnot.

 

Flying training missions with clear parameters, and much more regulated conditions is not the same as flying operational missions.

 

And even training missions are not structured the same way for all air forces. Often, air forces of authoritarian/dictatorial countries are allowed much less freedom regarding training and operation, regime rightly suspecting the potential to become a danger to its own suitability. This tends to have a negative effect on capabilities and morale.

 

The IAF heavily relies on reserve duty pilots, bolstering both numbers and experience. This featured on the protest movement against the government, with hundreds announcing they would suspend their (voluntary) service.

 

From what I know about the Chinese Air force, it's tightly controlled by the party. There are signs of modernization in terms of training missions and so on, but still a ways to go. Their strong point would be numbers, and some of their new gear looks the job (but not battle tested - same as the pilots and supporting crews).

 

 

Thank you for correcting me on that. I had forgotten the 1973 war, and was not aware that there was any air combat involved in 1982, but I see there was some activity against the Syrian airforce, but the Syrians were apparently useless ( not unexpectedly ), and didn't put up much of a show.

 

However, though I was wrong on those cases, my point is still valid. It's been 30 years since 1982, and probably none of those pilots will still be flying in combat, even if not retired.