Could an October Surprise Shift the Deadlocked Trump-Harris Race?

[elgordo38]

And what was in it for the ones killed in battle. Statistical merit perchance. 

[optad]

14 minutes ago, howto said:

China is in deep <deleted> economy wise.

Not to speak of currency depreciation/manipulation.

Has been for a while.

 

To say it bluntly...

China would be foolish to 'take on' the USA there.

They would lose, massively.

Within scant minutes (seconds), they would loose their...

- 'cheap' subs

- only aircraft carrier, aircraft, support ships

- the 'island' would be droned to death

No need for nuk's by the US, even small tactical ones.

 

Reprecussions would be immense for China.

Economy, military, world front, at home, etc.

To say it bluntly...

 

I don't think you have any clue re the fallout from such a scenario. You sound like a high schooler with a pass in history toting military armaments. It is not about a game of battleships, it will be about backroom deals and self interest which precludes the kind of engagement your movie, theatrical mind has played out. Ugly deals may be cut this type of engagement is beyond any tinder we know of as yet.

 

 

 

 

[howto]

1 hour ago, elgordo38 said:

Could be a battle in the South China Sea between the American Mach 7 cannon and the Chinese Assassins Mace. Interesting. 

Interesting, but I doubt it.

Will be subs, stealth fighter and drones.

 

'Wars are always loose loose situations'

Agree on premis, this would not be 'war' but a 'skirmish'

 

This is not 'the bay of pigs'.

 

29 minutes ago, optad said:

To say it bluntly...

 

I don't think you have any clue re the fallout from such a scenario. You sound like a high schooler with a pass in history toting military armaments. It is not about a game of battleships, it will be about backroom deals and self interest which precludes the kind of engagement your movie, theatrical mind has played out. Ugly deals may be cut this type of engagement is beyond any tinder we know of as yet.

 

To say it bluntly...

I don't think you have any clue as to the US Naval capability.

Nor to what 'new toys' they may bring to the event.

 

True, this will not be a game of battleships. That ended long ago.

It will be high tech precision weapons,

subs, drones, stealth fighters, with uber timing,

if it comes to that.

I personally don't think China is that stupid.

 

This is not a movie, nor a theatrical situation.

It will not likely include any backroom deals.

 

Here, China is the aggressor, per serveral countries, 

and UN resoloutions.

The ball is in China's court.

China will back off or else...

 

There will not be a 'blockade'

nor any UN BS resolution involved.

 

As I stated earlier, China knows the wind has changed.

No more Obama BS.

 

 

 

[optad]

You're completely within your own space. Safe place.  Enjoy.

[hawker9000]

21 hours ago, optad said:

The Chinese will let a lot fly but.... covet their 'territory'; be prepared. This one is not a flippant issue like "the wall".

 

Hope there is a better solution than what the Chinese have put unilaterally on the table, needs more but whatever that is , at this point, it will take some art. 

Thank-you Barack Obama for letting it GET to this point!!  THIS, boys & girls, is the true Obama "legacy".  Not too impressive.   What WILL be impressive is what it's gonna' take to unravel this now that it's been allowed to get this far.

 

[IAMHERE]

On 1/24/2017 at 11:53 AM, geriatrickid said:

Oh yes, because he wants to get stabbed in the back.

 

Remember Poland? The Russians cut a treaty with their best friends the nazis and invaded Poland.

Remember the Russian promises on the  Baltic states? No liberation  wfor them?

Remember the  Iron Curtain and the enslavement of eastern Europe? Putin the KGB  colnel wants to bring back the  diabolical stalinist regime.

 

 

Sounds ok to me, winning the cold war and freeing eastern Europe has done me as an American absolutely no good. The iron curtain should be brought back. I sure don't want to fight a war for the Crimea or Baltic states or any of the eastern Europe countries. For the West life was better with the USSR as a known enemy.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

Sounds ok to me, winning the cold war and freeing eastern Europe has done me as an American absolutely no good. The iron curtain should be brought back. I sure don't want to fight a war for the Crimea or Baltic states or any of the eastern Europe countries. For the West life was better with the USSR as a known enemy.

You don't remember cowering under flimsy little school desks because the teacher said the Russians may vaporize the school building and the city it was in? I was only 10 but knew the human body boils way below the boiling point of steel and brick.

[superal]

There will be no endorsements for military action from the American government . It will be a game of embargoes and sanctions with many other countries backing the USA . Any warfare could have catastrophic consequences .  

[NumbNut]

14 hours ago, manarak said:

that's wrong, there have been plenty of "good wars", at least for some of the victors, and often also for third party bystanders.

Good war or not, was it a 'just' war?

 

'The last Just War was Spartacus'  was a quote of a WWII US General I believe.

 

Pretty apt don't you reckon?

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, superal said:

There will be no endorsements for military action from the American government . It will be a game of embargoes and sanctions with many other countries backing the USA . Any warfare could have catastrophic consequences .  

You would think common sense would be enough to keep that from happening. But the only common ground that common sense and Donald Trump share is that the first word of both has 2 syllables and the second only 1.

[billd766]

15 hours ago, howto said:

Interesting, but I doubt it.

Will be subs, stealth fighter and drones.

 

'Wars are always loose loose situations'

Agree on premis, this would not be 'war' but a 'skirmish'

 

This is not 'the bay of pigs'.

 

To say it bluntly...

I don't think you have any clue as to the US Naval capability.

Nor to what 'new toys' they may bring to the event.

 

True, this will not be a game of battleships. That ended long ago.

It will be high tech precision weapons,

subs, drones, stealth fighters, with uber timing,

if it comes to that.

I personally don't think China is that stupid.

 

This is not a movie, nor a theatrical situation.

It will not likely include any backroom deals.

 

Here, China is the aggressor, per serveral countries, 

and UN resoloutions.

The ball is in China's court.

China will back off or else...

 

There will not be a 'blockade'

nor any UN BS resolution involved.

 

As I stated earlier, China knows the wind has changed.

No more Obama BS.

 

 

 

 

China can afford to loose 100 or 200 million people but can the USA?

[hawker9000]

10 hours ago, superal said:

There will be no endorsements for military action from the American government . It will be a game of embargoes and sanctions with many other countries backing the USA . Any warfare could have catastrophic consequences .  

'Hope you're right.  But I can see Trump initiating some genuine Freedom of Navigation exercises (as opposed to Obama's looney "Innocent Passage" flails which implicitly recognized bogus territoriality of the Chinese-claimed waters) which inspire a missile launch or other act of aggression from the Chinese on their manmade rubber ducks.  Then, with the US no longer kicking the can down the road, everyone will have to start making some hard decisions.

[WaywardWind]

21 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Thank-you Barack Obama for letting it GET to this point!!  THIS, boys & girls, is the true Obama "legacy".  Not too impressive.   What WILL be impressive is what it's gonna' take to unravel this now that it's been allowed to get this far.

 

You really need to refresh your knowledge of history: the dispute over the SCS, particularly the Spratleys and the Paracels, has been going on for decades, if not longer.

 

But of course, it is much easier to simply blame President Obama than to educate yourself before speaking.

[hawker9000]

10 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

You really need to refresh your knowledge of history: the dispute over the SCS, particularly the Spratleys and the Paracels, has been going on for decades, if not longer.

 

But of course, it is much easier to simply blame President Obama than to educate yourself before speaking.

Oh don't be silly.  You know as well as I do they created the ADIZ, started building the man-made islands and then fortifying them, and actually claiming the entire S. China Sea as its own during the Obama years. 

 

But of course, it is much easier to simply ignore Obama's ineptness than to do anything about your own ignorance before speaking.  (Well, actually, it can't be THAT easy.  Such epic incompetence simply isn't that easily ignored, even by the epically ignorant...)

 

 

 

[WaywardWind]

26 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh don't be silly.  You know as well as I do they created the ADIZ, started building the man-made islands and then fortifying them, and actually claiming the entire S. China Sea as its own during the Obama years. 

 

But of course, it is much easier to simply ignore Obama's ineptness than to do anything about your own ignorance before speaking.  (Well, actually, it can't be THAT easy.  Such epic incompetence simply isn't that easily ignored, even by the epically ignorant...)

 

 

 

As I said, you need to educate yourself.

 

Here's a pretty good start, with a timeline going way back in history. Pay particular attention to the escalating tensions and naval battles which occurred in the 1970s and 1980s which is what I referenced.

 

You're right...ignorance is a terrible thing, as you have well demonstrated...

[billd766]

On 25/01/2017 at 1:57 AM, optad said:

To say it bluntly...

 

I don't think you have any clue re the fallout from such a scenario. You sound like a high schooler with a pass in history toting military armaments. It is not about a game of battleships, it will be about backroom deals and self interest which precludes the kind of engagement your movie, theatrical mind has played out. Ugly deals may be cut this type of engagement is beyond any tinder we know of as yet.

 

 

 

 

 

It is also about vanity, boastfulness and an unnecessary waste of human lives. The only ones that will not suffer are the leaders who start it. The military on either side will be the ones who end it and the innocent civilians will be the ones who suffer the most.

[WaywardWind]

2 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

As I said, you need to educate yourself.

 

Here's a pretty good start, with a timeline going way back in history. Pay particular attention to the escalating tensions and naval battles which occurred in the 1970s and 1980s which is what I referenced.

 

You're right...ignorance is a terrible thing, as you have well demonstrated...

Here is the timeline which did not post before for some reason.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_South_China_Sea_dispute

 

Also look closely at 1946, which is when China first established their "dashed line" claim.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

'Hope you're right.  But I can see Trump initiating some genuine Freedom of Navigation exercises (as opposed to Obama's looney "Innocent Passage" flails which implicitly recognized bogus territoriality of the Chinese-claimed waters) which inspire a missile launch or other act of aggression from the Chinese on their manmade rubber ducks.  Then, with the US no longer kicking the can down the road, everyone will have to start making some hard decisions.

Obama did the right thing while the situation was being ruled upon by the international court.  Plus, the US is not signatory to UNCLOS.  Of which FON and innocent passage are described.