China Can Beat the U.S. Air Force in a War

[LeGenD]

Let's also not forget that McArthur insisted the US drop a few atomic bombs on China to keep them out of the conflict,but he was replaced.

The biggest mistake of the US was to massively cut down its army in size in the late 1940s. This is admitted in American records. The US was not expecting war to break out in the Korean region. North Korea had created a professional army with support of Soviet Union and steamrolled South Korea in 1950. The US was caught off-guard in this situation but US-led forces were able to liberate South Korea in the end.

The most fascinating thing is performance of American Pershing tank in this war. This tank was built to kill German Tiger tanks and it did very well in the Korean War as well. Pershing tank smoked Soviet T-34s among others in battles. But the US did not had much time to mass produce it at the time.

 

[Yellow is Okay]

Operation Linebacker II in 1972 was so effective that it took Vietcong 3 years to recover from its blows and capture the South in 1975. However, Nixon had made the decision to withdraw American troops earlier in 1971 and did not change his stance on the issue. However, if the US had continued for like 2 more years, it would have won the war absolutely. This is admitted in American records. But this war did not appeal to American people for some reason.

Viet Cong and the NVA were different, but the thing is you can't just cut off the connections among people within the same country that easily. In Vietnam, geography played a crucial role in aiding the North's infiltration into the South. In the Mekong Delta, locals there literally provided shelter to the Viet Cong. And even today, you'll see HCM's picture hanging above many family altars.

 

[Foinikas]

The most fascinating thing is performance of American Pershing tank in this war.

And may I add that the Pershing is one of the most beautiful tanks in history? At least for me

 

[Beijingwalker]

China is underestimating the US strength while overestimating their strength. It is recipe for disaster.

It's always US over estimating itself, Like arrogant Macarthur bragged about bringing US soldiers back home by Christmas 1950, and he ended up going back home all by himself. ( Fired by US president Truman)

 

[Hack-Hook]

Seems you have no idea what you are talking about. Ukraine was a sht hole military the only western weapons it had at start of war were javelins, stingers and Hummer-vehicles and that's it. Everything else in their military arsenal was Soviet era. Ukraine at the time was just as bad as Russia when it came to corruption.

Iraq military in 2003 was more capable than Ukraine Feb, of 2022. Iraq 1991 was not ragtag it was the 4th largest army and combat experience and Baghdad was second to Moscow in density of IADS which were built by the French.

Ukraine was sithole military in 2014 but in 2022 it was a lot batter than many European countries and last time I checked even eastern block weapon can kill
As a matter of fact I don't think any weapon system killed as much as ak-47 in all human history

About Iraq in 2003 compared to Ukraine 2022 pleas stop joking in a serious discussion

 

[SolarWarden]

Ukraine was sithole military in 2014 but in 2022 it was a lot batter than many European countries and last time I checked even eastern block weapon can kill

Explain exactly how it was better than many Euro countries and list those countries.

As a matter of fact I don't think any weapon system killed as much as ak-47 in all human history

How about the sword.

About Iraq in 2003 compared to Ukraine 2022 pleas stop joking in a serious discussion

Says the guy the ak47 has killed as much in all human history.

Talk about pulling claims out of.....

 

[Get Ya Wig Split]

$1500 billion (5% GDP): Top Republican pitches dramatic jump in defense spending, $55B more in FY25​

The United States spent about 3 percent of its GDP on defense in 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and hasn’t sustained defense spending at the 5 percent level since the early 1990s. With the current budget nearing $900 billion, adding another 2 percent would mean an increase of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Wicker’s plan states that the Air Force should buy at least 340 more fighter aircraft over the next five years and “at least double” B-21 bomber procurement, currently set for 100 planes. It also directs the Air Force to begin a rapid acquisition program for the E-2D Hawkeye instead of buying the E-7 Wedgetail.

5% GDP: Top SASC Republican pitches dramatic jump in defense spending, $55B more in FY25 - Breaking Defense

Sen. Roger Wicker said the plan would "enable the United States to fix our failing defense infrastructure, field a new generation of equipment, and maintain American technological leadership."

breakingdefense.com

China's got no chance. The current US defense budget is at a historic low of 2.8% (the historical average is 4.2%). When Obama sent 70k troops to Afghanistan in 2010, the military budget for that year was 4.6% of GDP. Today 5% would mean 1.5 trillion dollars or an additional $600 billion. Something to think about.

 

[Beijingwalker]

$1500 billion (5% GDP): Top Republican pitches dramatic jump in defense spending, $55B more in FY25​

The United States spent about 3 percent of its GDP on defense in 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and hasn’t sustained defense spending at the 5 percent level since the early 1990s. With the current budget nearing $900 billion, adding another 2 percent would mean an increase of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Wicker’s plan states that the Air Force should buy at least 340 more fighter aircraft over the next five years and “at least double” B-21 bomber procurement, currently set for 100 planes. It also directs the Air Force to begin a rapid acquisition program for the E-2D Hawkeye instead of buying the E-7 Wedgetail.

5% GDP: Top SASC Republican pitches dramatic jump in defense spending, $55B more in FY25 - Breaking Defense

Sen. Roger Wicker said the plan would "enable the United States to fix our failing defense infrastructure, field a new generation of equipment, and maintain American technological leadership."

breakingdefense.com

China's got no chance. The current US defense budget is at a historic low of 2.8% (the historical average is 4.2%). When Obama sent 70k troops to Afghanistan in 2010, the military budget for that year was 4.6% of GDP. Today 5% would mean 1.5 trillion dollars or an additional $600 billion. Something to think about.

View attachment 48098

Make it 10%, US has been long down the path of the former Soviet Union.

 

[DF-41]

Make it 10%, US has been long down the path of the former Soviet Union.

HELPING USA DOWN THAT PATH OF BANKRUPTCY TO DRAIN THE POISON AND EVIL EMBEDDED IN WHITEHOUSE AND EVERYWHERE IN THE GABERMENT OF USA

THAT USA CANNOT SPREAD HER LIES AND MISCHIEF AND EVIL ALL OVER EARTH IN THE PRETENSE SHE STAND AS POLICEMAN

DEFUND THAT POLICEMAN

 

[DF-41]

HELPING USA DOWN THAT PATH OF BANKRUPTCY TO DRAIN THE POISON AND EVIL EMBEDDED IN WHITEHOUSE AND EVERYWHERE IN THE GABERMENT OF USA

THAT USA CANNOT SPREAD HER LIES AND MISCHIEF AND EVIL ALL OVER EARTH IN THE PRETENSE SHE STAND AS POLICEMAN

DEFUND THAT POLICEMAN

View attachment 48169

Will Debt Sink the American Empire?

Washington has been adding to the national debt at an alarming pace. Not so long ago—beginning in the late 1990s—the federal government’s budget was actually in surplus, at least for a time. This year, it will be some $1.9 trillion in the red, the Congressional Budget Office forecast just this week.

Only a dozen years ago, the aggregate government debt amounted to about 70% of the nation’s gross domestic product. This year, it will be about equal to the entire gross domestic product (and by some measures higher when additional government accounts are included). By 2028, it is forecast to reach a record 106% of GDP, matching the record hit during the heavy spending to finance World War II. By 2034, barring changes in tax and spending policy, it is projected to hit 122% of GDP, the highest level ever recorded.

This red ink can have painful, if hidden, consequences. The CBO projects that the weight of the debt will reduce income growth by 12% over the next three decades, as debt payment crowds out other investments.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



“Any great power that spends more on debt service than on defense will not stay great for very long. True of Habsburg Spain, true of ancien régime France, true of the Ottoman Empire, true of the British Empire, this law is about to be put to the test by the U.S. beginning this very year.”

 

[SolarWarden]

Will Debt Sink the American Empire?

Washington has been adding to the national debt at an alarming pace. Not so long ago—beginning in the late 1990s—the federal government’s budget was actually in surplus, at least for a time. This year, it will be some $1.9 trillion in the red, the Congressional Budget Office forecast just this week.

Only a dozen years ago, the aggregate government debt amounted to about 70% of the nation’s gross domestic product. This year, it will be about equal to the entire gross domestic product (and by some measures higher when additional government accounts are included). By 2028, it is forecast to reach a record 106% of GDP, matching the record hit during the heavy spending to finance World War II. By 2034, barring changes in tax and spending policy, it is projected to hit 122% of GDP, the highest level ever recorded.

This red ink can have painful, if hidden, consequences. The CBO projects that the weight of the debt will reduce income growth by 12% over the next three decades, as debt payment crowds out other investments.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



“Any great power that spends more on debt service than on defense will not stay great for very long. True of Habsburg Spain, true of ancien régime France, true of the Ottoman Empire, true of the British Empire, this law is about to be put to the test by the U.S. beginning this very year.”

Stop being an idiot by rerailing the thread with off topic moronic post. Such a wumao.

 

[j_hungary]

Fair points, but Iraq had put together a much better military force in 1988 in comparison to what it had in 1980. So US-led coalition was up against a new Iraqi military force to which the entire Middle East had no counter at the time as I have explained at length in previous post. Arabs looked at all options but decided that US is the only country that could stop Iraq in 1991.

People who labelled Iraq in 2003 is a "joke" of an army didn't know square shit on military.

Iraq in 2003 is as capable if not more capable than when they were in the first Gulf war. Their doctrine has accomplished a lot and offer us a lot more resistance than in 1991.

War don't win just because you have state of the art equipment, just look at how Russia fumbles the invasion of Ukraine. War is fought, win or lose, in respect to strategy, how you command your troop and fight your enemy, knowing your own strength as well as weakness and know them as well with your enemy, how you can exploit your enemy weakness. This is how you win a war.

Iraq has had a few battles that stop us in the track, Battle of Karbala, the First Battle of Fallujah is the prime example on how Iraqi make us pay. In fact, West Point had started studying and teaching the Battle of Karbala Gap as their curriculum since 2010s, it's easy to say Iraqi is nothing but a ragtag bunch of ragheads. But people who say that have no business in war in general.

 

[SaadH]

Fair points, but Iraq had put together a much better military force in 1988 in comparison to what it had in 1980. So US-led coalition was up against a new Iraqi military force to which the entire Middle East had no counter at the time as I have explained at length in previous post. Arabs looked at all options but decided that US is the only country that could stop Iraq in 1991.

Iraq had mostly inferior Soviet tech/equipment and outdated Soviet tactics, ill fated against modern militaries. It was a paper tiger with an airforce kitted in mostly inferior 3rd generation Soviet fighters and non existing force multipliers in the ecm/eccm and aew&c realms. There were plenty of counters to Iraqi military even in the mid to late eighties. A heavily sanctioned Iran was able to counter them quite effectively.

 

[Sarsilmaz]

People who labelled Iraq in 2003 is a "joke" of an army didn't know square shit on military.

Iraq in 2003 is as capable if not more capable than when they were in the first Gulf war. Their doctrine has accomplished a lot and offer us a lot more resistance than in 1991.

War don't win just because you have state of the art equipment, just look at how Russia fumbles the invasion of Ukraine. War is fought, win or lose, in respect to strategy, how you command your troop and fight your enemy, knowing your own strength as well as weakness and know them as well with your enemy, how you can exploit your enemy weakness. This is how you win a war.

Iraq has had a few battles that stop us in the track, Battle of Karbala, the First Battle of Fallujah is the prime example on how Iraqi make us pay. In fact, West Point had started studying and teaching the Battle of Karbala Gap as their curriculum since 2010s, it's easy to say Iraqi is nothing but a ragtag bunch of ragheads. But people who say that have no business in war in general.

True:
Modern weapon systems alone are not enough.
In war, a war strategy is crucial.
But the Gulf War and the Russia/Ukraine war and their developments are not examples of/for a China/Taiwan war.

There are a few factors to consider.

Gulf War:

• 1. Iraq was weakened by the 8-year Iraq/Iran war(1980-88).
• 2. Saddam Hussein did not have the support of Iraq's Shiites (70% population).
• 3. Iraq's population 1991 was only 17 million.
• The willingness to fight for Saddam Hussein was almost zero.

Iraq was 1991 an easy target, it was weak and defenseless.

Russia/Ukraine War:
The course of the war and the front lines show that Russia has no intention to occupie the Ukraine.

If Russia had planned to occupy Ukraine, Russia would take control of Ukraine's supply routes and isolate most of the Ukrainian population from the world.


Incorrect assessments of Russian strategy and its consequences.

The strategy that Russia used would only be possible with the support of the population.
The Russians thought they would be welcomed with open arms. But the opposite was the case.

 

[LeGenD]

People who labelled Iraq in 2003 is a "joke" of an army didn't know square shit on military.

Iraq in 2003 is as capable if not more capable than when they were in the first Gulf war. Their doctrine has accomplished a lot and offer us a lot more resistance than in 1991.

War don't win just because you have state of the art equipment, just look at how Russia fumbles the invasion of Ukraine. War is fought, win or lose, in respect to strategy, how you command your troop and fight your enemy, knowing your own strength as well as weakness and know them as well with your enemy, how you can exploit your enemy weakness. This is how you win a war.

Iraq has had a few battles that stop us in the track, Battle of Karbala, the First Battle of Fallujah is the prime example on how Iraqi make us pay. In fact, West Point had started studying and teaching the Battle of Karbala Gap as their curriculum since 2010s, it's easy to say Iraqi is nothing but a ragtag bunch of ragheads. But people who say that have no business in war in general.

Many have never witnessed or studied urban warfare and does not realize how terrible it can be. Many do not understand that tanks should survive in cities or the offensive will fail. There is a reason why US develop strongest tanks in the world. Iraqi plan was to draw US-led forces into cities and defeat them there but American and British tanks could withstand many blows so the tide turned in the favor of US-led forces.

I still recall images of two American tanks that were destroyed near Baghdad, I wonder what was used to destroy such a strong machine. However, there were many tanks that could not be stopped.

An army in the Middle East or Asian would have flopped in Iraqi cities. Iran dispatched a force of 60,000 troops to take Basra and failed to take it in 1986. Those who think that Iraqi cannot fight, do not know Iraqi well enough. The region is home to one of the oldest civilizations to have ever existed. These are proud people who are willing to fight anytime. Even Taliban in Afghanistan learned from Iraqi fighters to come up with tactics to handle Afghan National Army.