China having military capability to fight the US does not mean that China should want to fight the US. A war would be incredibly costly for everyone involved, as we can see in Ukraine right now. What possible benefit is there in provoking conflict with an unhinged nuclear power?
On Nuclear warfare I think this prospect is absolutely silly.
RAND literally published a paper about nuking China if US starts losing, but do go on.
Chinese resistance doesn’t lead to WW3 anymore than Russia invading Ukraine lead to WW3, we don’t need to submit to liberal fearmongering propaganda.
Yes it does actually. US does not see Russia as being the same type of threat as China.
Yet To defend the mistakes of CPC politics we adopt the same discourse? “Yes actually the US must invade China and launch 100 nukes on Beijing if Xi even so much as tell Israel to fuck off?”
The fact that anybody would think avoiding war is a mistake is absolutely insane to me. I’m so very glad people with your mindset are nowhere near levers of power in China.
Finaly people here have complained, correctly that Biden is literaly 99% Hitler. So are we shaking hands with Hitler or not?
We’ve already seen what happened to USSR trying to have an openly adversarial relationship with the empire. Clearly some people learned absolutely nothing from that. The reality is that Chinese approach is working, and the US today is the weakest it has ever been since WW2. China is defeating the empire without bloodshed, and yet here we have western ultras complaining about it. Absolutely incredible stuff.
China having military capability to fight the US does not mean that China should want to fight the US. A war would be incredibly costly for everyone involved, as we can see in Ukraine right now. What possible benefit is there in provoking conflict with an unhinged nuclear power?
You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between? In my initial comment I said nothing about instigating conflict. Please, things like the capitalist financial incentives have nothing to do with nuclear war!
I merely commented on Chinese concessions to US imperialism at home and abroad as unecessary and I maintain that.
Besides the elephant in the room is it remains unclear how China investing into Israel in 2015 or giving weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2022 is appeasing conflict at home. With Israel it was the US that had to step in and push both of them apart as Chinese influence from investments was growing.
Did Trump and Biden put Xi on a nuclear gunpoint and say you must aid our imperialist puppets or else? Come on you know the reason why, rather they thought Palestine would head to a two state solution at best and the region was stabilizing e.g see Saudi-Iran deal.
We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone’s bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.
The Genocide shows the failure of Chinese ideals, no you can’t be friends with everyone unless you’re ideologically compromised.
The fact that anybody would think avoiding war is a mistake is absolutely insane to me.
Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we’re back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.
Fucking Xi wont stop on Taiwan, he wants global domination! Its exactly why the US must launch 100 nukes!
I’m so very glad people with your mindset are nowhere near levers of power in China.
Instead we have cowards and grifters, literal enemies of the global south arming our enemies while delusional westerners say nothing but hail Xi as the Comunist party shakes hands with Hitler during the hollocaust.
If only Stalin had fucking J-20s and hypersonic missiles huh? Fuck off the personal attack wasn’t necessary.
If you’re going to quote RAND at least understand they’re not hawkish on nuclear war at all, on the contrary they’re analysing potential paths for war while managing escalation.
Avoid making U.S. long-range strike capabilities an attractive target for a limited Chinese nuclear strike.
Avoid long-range strike missions that could accidentally or inadvertently engage a nuclear armed third-party, such as Russia or North Korea.
Avoid extemporaneous responses to dangerous moments by preparing communication strategies and responses to Chinese nuclear signaling or use ahead of time.
Avoid peacetime training of conventional missions that appear most likely to trigger Chinese nuclear use, such as large-scale cost-imposition, leadership decapitation, or counterforce.
History suggests that U.S. political leadership might not authorize U.S. kinetic strikes on mainland China during a future conflict.
In Taiwan scenario wargames, U.S. long-range strike is linked to multiple undesired or unintentional escalation dynamics.
In most Taiwan scenario wargames, the initial aim of U.S. conventional long-range strike is operational defense (pure denial) to stop an amphibious assault against Taiwan.
DoD should prepare responses to potential Chinese nuclear deterrence signaling. These responses could vary from very publicly shaming nuclear weapon use to limited but intentionally observable increases in U.S. nuclear readiness, such as initiating continuous airborne alert for the U.S. airborne command posts or moving bombers to alert positions and bringing air crews back to ensure a sustainable day-to-day alert posture (as opposed to immediately raising the defense readiness condition).
There are many pathways to possible nuclear escalation; nuclear use might result from one that seems far-fetched, so even implausible pathways deserve consideration.
If fully committed to fighting and winning a war with China, the United States must be prepared for nuclear escalation and place more emphasis on managing these risks.
None of these 4 papers advise or approach it from the angle of US first use, on the contrary they’re specialy concerned with managing escalation while being open to raising it which is entirely expected.
You can’t jump from this to “the US will nuke China first if it loses” unless you can mention another source.
You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between?
There are and China is taking them, that’s why US power is visibly fading on the global stage.
We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone’s bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.
Ah yes, Saudis are back on the leash restoring relations with Iran, moving towards the BRICS, and planning to sell oil outside the dollar. Yup, totally makes sense.
Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we’re back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.
I’m not sure how you can draw any meaningful comparisons with Ukraine here to be honest.
Meanwhile, those aren’t the papers I was talking about. The paper in question is this one which actively advocates for a war with China and hand waves the use of nuclear weapons as unlikely suggesting that if US did use nuclear weapons that China somehow wouldn’t retaliate directly:
It is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used: Even in an intensely violent conventional conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its prospects so dire, or the stakes so vital that it would run the risk of devastating nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. We also assume that China would not attack the U.S. homeland, except via cyberspace, given its
minimal capability to do so with conventional weapons.
The paper calls for a preemptive strike to be on the table. The editorial itself argues that a preemptive strike would result in a protracted conflict that would be ruinous both in terms of fatalities and economic costs, but proposes an unprovoked attack nonetheless.
As its military advantage declines, the United States will be less confident that a war with China will conform to its plans. China’s improved military capabilities, particularly for anti-access and area denial (A2AD), mean that the United States cannot count on gaining operational control, destroying China’s defences, and achieving decisive victory if a war occurred.
The unstated conclusion here is that a war with China must be fought sooner rather than later.
Furthermore, The Federation of American Scientists provides a useful analysis of the Pentagon’s tilt toward nuclear use as a regional deterrent. https://fas.org/publication/lrso-mission/
Tactical nuclear warfare is undeniably a priority for the Air Force, not only in its selection of weaponry but also in its strategic doctrine. The US believes that there exists a tactical nuclear use phase of war-fighting, which curiously differs from a full-scale nuclear war. This specific context is deemed ideal by the Air Force for deploying tactical nukes without provoking an immediate strategic retaliation against the US.
China having military capability to fight the US does not mean that China should want to fight the US. A war would be incredibly costly for everyone involved, as we can see in Ukraine right now. What possible benefit is there in provoking conflict with an unhinged nuclear power?
RAND literally published a paper about nuking China if US starts losing, but do go on.
Yes it does actually. US does not see Russia as being the same type of threat as China.
The fact that anybody would think avoiding war is a mistake is absolutely insane to me. I’m so very glad people with your mindset are nowhere near levers of power in China.
We’ve already seen what happened to USSR trying to have an openly adversarial relationship with the empire. Clearly some people learned absolutely nothing from that. The reality is that Chinese approach is working, and the US today is the weakest it has ever been since WW2. China is defeating the empire without bloodshed, and yet here we have western ultras complaining about it. Absolutely incredible stuff.
You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between? In my initial comment I said nothing about instigating conflict. Please, things like the capitalist financial incentives have nothing to do with nuclear war! I merely commented on Chinese concessions to US imperialism at home and abroad as unecessary and I maintain that.
Besides the elephant in the room is it remains unclear how China investing into Israel in 2015 or giving weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2022 is appeasing conflict at home. With Israel it was the US that had to step in and push both of them apart as Chinese influence from investments was growing.
Did Trump and Biden put Xi on a nuclear gunpoint and say you must aid our imperialist puppets or else? Come on you know the reason why, rather they thought Palestine would head to a two state solution at best and the region was stabilizing e.g see Saudi-Iran deal.
We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone’s bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.
The Genocide shows the failure of Chinese ideals, no you can’t be friends with everyone unless you’re ideologically compromised.
Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we’re back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.
Fucking Xi wont stop on Taiwan, he wants global domination! Its exactly why the US must launch 100 nukes!
Instead we have cowards and grifters, literal enemies of the global south arming our enemies while delusional westerners say nothing but hail Xi as the Comunist party shakes hands with Hitler during the hollocaust.
If only Stalin had fucking J-20s and hypersonic missiles huh? Fuck off the personal attack wasn’t necessary.
If you’re going to quote RAND at least understand they’re not hawkish on nuclear war at all, on the contrary they’re analysing potential paths for war while managing escalation.
Next time post your source.
Paper 1
Paper 2
Paper 3
Paper 4
None of these 4 papers advise or approach it from the angle of US first use, on the contrary they’re specialy concerned with managing escalation while being open to raising it which is entirely expected.
You can’t jump from this to “the US will nuke China first if it loses” unless you can mention another source.
There are and China is taking them, that’s why US power is visibly fading on the global stage.
Ah yes, Saudis are back on the leash restoring relations with Iran, moving towards the BRICS, and planning to sell oil outside the dollar. Yup, totally makes sense.
I’m not sure how you can draw any meaningful comparisons with Ukraine here to be honest.
Meanwhile, those aren’t the papers I was talking about. The paper in question is this one which actively advocates for a war with China and hand waves the use of nuclear weapons as unlikely suggesting that if US did use nuclear weapons that China somehow wouldn’t retaliate directly:
The paper calls for a preemptive strike to be on the table. The editorial itself argues that a preemptive strike would result in a protracted conflict that would be ruinous both in terms of fatalities and economic costs, but proposes an unprovoked attack nonetheless.
The unstated conclusion here is that a war with China must be fought sooner rather than later.
Furthermore, The Federation of American Scientists provides a useful analysis of the Pentagon’s tilt toward nuclear use as a regional deterrent. https://fas.org/publication/lrso-mission/
US Air Force developed the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb with dialable yields up to 50 kilotons that can be delivered by a stealth fighter https://www.revealnews.org/blog/risky-u-s-nuclear-bomb-gets-green-light/
US is also developing a stealth cruise missile with dialable yield, also capable of carrying a conventional as well as nuclear payload that can be dropped off a stealth bomber https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2022_SARS/LRSO_SAR_DEC_2022.pdf
Tactical nuclear warfare is undeniably a priority for the Air Force, not only in its selection of weaponry but also in its strategic doctrine. The US believes that there exists a tactical nuclear use phase of war-fighting, which curiously differs from a full-scale nuclear war. This specific context is deemed ideal by the Air Force for deploying tactical nukes without provoking an immediate strategic retaliation against the US.