This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Who Would Win A Conflict In The South China Sea: The Infographic

Tyler Durden's picture




 

As regular readers are no doubt aware, the US and China are racing towards a maritime conflict stemming from Beijing’s construction of what Washington has condescendingly called “sand castles” in the Spratly archipelago. 

Atop these man-made islands are cement plants, air strips, and soon-to-be lighthouses, as China boldly asserts its territorial claims on what are heavily-contested waters though which trillions in seaborne freight pass each year.

Now, with Beijing set to enforce what is effectively a no-fly zone over its new sovereign ‘territory’ we bring you the following graphic from WSJ which shows that when it comes to sheer size, China’s air force and Navy are beyond compare.

 

More, from WSJ

China’s promise to beef up its naval capabilities to prevent further “meddling” and “provocative actions” by rivals in the South China Sea is a daunting prospect for most of its neighbors, which already view Beijing’s fast-improving armed forces with trepidation...

 

As a recent Pentagon review of China’s military modernization drive noted, “China is investing in capabilities designed to defeat adversary power projection and counter third-party—including U.S.—intervention during a crisis or conflict.” In practice, that means hundreds of ballistic and cruise missiles positioned near the coast to deter Japanese or American warships from coming anywhere near Chinese territory. China has a substantial submarine fleet as well, piling on more risk for enemy ships.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:01 | 6137423 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

What's your point? Are you trying to justify your ignorance, or are you bragging about it?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:14 | 6136948 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Jack,

It took the equivalent of 24 carrier groups to subdue the Pacific in WWII,including

four RN carriers in the Forgotten (6th)Fleet.With all that,it was the subs that actually won it

because the Japanese lived on islands.

Admirals always fight the last war, and always get surprised.

The Chinese are only interested in their own backyard and will have home team advantage.

Japan would be swiftly taken out and the South China Sea will become a kill zone for the USN.

You may want to reconsider your premises,you being exUSN is coloring your thinking IMO.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:25 | 6136993 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

"Japan will be taken out..."

 

LMFAO. That was fast. SMH...........

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:31 | 6137026 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Are you another that doesn't have an atlas ?

China's allies in the SCO would be keeping Uncle Scam busy elsewher I'm sure in this scenario.

China nuking Japan could be considered an improvement,finally containing Fukushima in glass.

You think the US would do anything ?

Dream on.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:44 | 6137094 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

Yes. China will nuke Japan to prove that they own some coral reefs off the coast of the PI and the whole world will yawn.

LMFAO.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:53 | 6137142 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Only if Japan refuses to stay out of it.You really should read some history.

Pity the poor servicepeeps on Okinawa, they may have to leave in a hurry,something most

Japanese would'nt be too unhappy about either.

Their choice,but when push comes to shove...

Now Rhode Island is safe, but who wants to live there.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:18 | 6137247 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

Not so fast Sir Pedant. YOU took out Japan in YOUR armchair generalship.

Now fucking OWN IT.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:26 | 6137278 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Diplomatically or militarily.

Their choice.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:59 | 6137410 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

oh, there are plenty of atlases to be found here... they're just not 70 fucking years old like yours apparently is...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 18:56 | 6138130 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Wisdom sometimes comes with age.

Is youth your excuse for being dumb?

If you could make coherant statement and arguments,you would'nt be such a joke here.

Go snuggle up in your flag and comforter.

Either express an rational argument or go over to HuffPo,or Faux news and keep company with your fellow

feeble minds.

I know you should see how the US has been completely sold down the river,and outmanoevered.

What is it ? Cog Diss.? or just stupidity ?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:59 | 6137170 deja
deja's picture

The chinese are only interested in their own back yard for now.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:21 | 6137257 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

You mean the backyard that stretches from Brazil to the Ghana? LMFAO. You people are on a roll today. Downvote away, lmfao...........

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:11 | 6137475 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

have you ever seen empire's backyard . 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:08 | 6137206 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Japan has been permanently occupied since WW2. They are a US outpost. Japan itself may not possees a strong military, but we do and we keep plenty of weapons and "military advisers" in Japan. We have military bases and redeployment facilities everywhere. We've got the whole planet surrounded.

Anyone mad enough to start a major war would have to go straight for the command core, wiping out major cities by throwing every missile they've got and hoping enough of them reach the end destination. Naval encounters otherwise are guaranteed to end in our favor.

Nuclear subs and ICBM's present the biggest threat. When employed, they make every other countermeasure obsolete.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:05 | 6138157 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

I understand we have some missile so fast that they are nearly impossible to defend against.

I suppose we could use conventional warheads on these fast missiles to take out as many Chinese Vessels as we chose from way out if they are bunched up.

Afraid I don't know anything about the targeting systems that a fast missile would use, gyro, GPS, if we have the Locations of the Ships individually they can be targeted individually.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:09 | 6137567 milos
milos's picture

Agreed, Chinese are 2-5 years ahead in IT and engineering, http://icpc.baylor.edu/scoreboard/ , are quiet observers and have learned precedents established by the west. Chinese cognitive skills are a magnitude above the west, they all read and comprehend English but we haven't a clue what they publish. Society is very open and connected and they don't miss a trick.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:34 | 6137838 Freddie
Freddie's picture

This thread has a lot of US Navy former semen and Tel Aviv fanbois.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:19 | 6136970 Payne
Payne's picture

Supply lines is always the answer.  The US Navy has the longest and most vulnerable supply lines and well as depends on China for Strategic imports for weapons manufacture.  So the US Navy can only win in your dreams of superiorty, not in Reality.  You also did not include mine warfare in your matrix.  US Navy is a blue Water navy not a shallow ops force.  Carriers can be overwhelmed by missle attacks,  or Wake homing topoedo or both.  Frigates are designed to be cheap,  Sub fleet has lost the battle for money so it is way too small.  US Navy is currently destined for a major loss.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:21 | 6136974 BandGap
BandGap's picture

Not a big fan of war, I agree Jack. China would get it's ass handed to it. There should be an asterisk for the Chinese aircraft carrier.

Japan has a very well trained and technologically driven fleet, as well. They supposedly have the quietest non-nuclear subs in the world. Their air force is exceptiona, as well.

I read a while back that the likelihood of this happening is increased due to the lack of war experience in the Chinese officer corps. They might become idiots looking for a fight. Then again, so is the US, I guess.

Who builds their own island military base in the middle of the ocean?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:05 | 6137196 deja
deja's picture

Their biggest weakness is it's always been a heavily top down society.  Hit them with something unexpected and they'll run around disjointed until orders come down.  Changing that would take a couple of generations and I don't think the powers that be would be willing to allow their population to become more free thinking and free acting.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:35 | 6137312 BandGap
BandGap's picture

They had miltary maneuvers a few years back and had to cart in comfort women, no shit.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:50 | 6137900 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Japan is a dead and dying country.  You have heard about that Fuki thing haven't you?   The poor bastards on the flight deck of the uSS Ronald Reagan have heard of it. 

America is Baltimore Trayvonville.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:32 | 6137032 Pet Rock
Pet Rock's picture

Saddam had "the largest military" and they had "years of battle experience".....   And then they met Stormin' Norman....   Numbers only matter if you are keeping track of how many of the enemy you are killing.  Training, dedication, efficiency, etc. are what win wars.  We learned from Sun Tzu but I don't know if the current Chinese power players ever read up on him....  

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:34 | 6137309 NeverForgetSilver
NeverForgetSilver's picture

After WWI and WWII, China is the only country which defeated US, once in Korea and second time in Vietnam. Underestimating the enemy of difference race is the main weakness of US population, including its military. I remember General Douglas MacArthur said a month before Chinese army entered the war - if Chinese army enters the war, it will be the biggest turkey shoot in the history. Then what happened was completely different. US had to give up the entire North Korea.  

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:47 | 6137363 NeverForgetSilver
NeverForgetSilver's picture

North Korea did a poor job and Vietnam did a great job. But both survived with the participation of Chinese army.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:10 | 6137472 BandGap
BandGap's picture

Since this is fight club - you're so full of shit about China in Viet Nam. The Soviets supplied the NVA with weapons and support, not China. The Vietnamese HATE the Chinese, they even went to war with them briefly in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

China got it's ass kicked good by Viet Nam.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:21 | 6137525 NeverForgetSilver
NeverForgetSilver's picture

China sent 600,000 troops to Vietname during the war. China supplied Vietnam with missles,  light weaponry, air defence and supply lines. Russia did not send troops in. You don't know that China took over air defence from Vietnamese troops due to the lack of education in Vietnamese part.  Vietnamese do hate Chinese due to historic reasons.  Their conflict was way after the vietnam war. Don't mix up the sequence of events. 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:36 | 6137573 BandGap
BandGap's picture

The Sino-Soviet split in the 60s meant that the Soviets eventually became Viet Nam's main benefactor. From 1968 on the Chinese got out of Viet nam. The Chinese helped mainly with infrastructure (roads, buildings, defense outposts) and some weaponry.

"Moscow now became North Vietnam’s main benefactor, increasing its aid to Hanoi in response to the US military escalation of 1965. The true extent of this support has never been fully disclosed, though it was certainly substantial. There were widespread reports in 1966 that North Vietnamese fighter pilots, air crews and anti-aircraft gunners had received training in the USSR. It has also been subsequently revealed that around 3,000 Soviet personnel served in North Vietnam in 1964-65 and were responsible for shooting down US planes. By the spring of 1967, TIME Magazine was reporting that a “river of aid” was flowing from Russia into North Vietnam. According to some analysts, by the late 1960s more than three-quarters of the military and technical equipment received by North Vietnam was coming from the USSR. And unlike the equipment and weapons supplied by Beijing – which demanded deferred payment – most Soviet assistance was supplied as aid rather than loans. - See more at: http://alphahistory.com/vietnam/chinese-and-soviet-involvement/#sthash.wTMNKSJH.dpuf

The Soviets are the ones that helped push the Vietnamese into the Paris Peace talks.

The Viet Nam War ended in 1974, the conflict with China was 1979. How is this "way after"?

 

 

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:47 | 6137611 NeverForgetSilver
NeverForgetSilver's picture

Is 1979 five years after 1974, or I don't know how to count?

Compared with I heard from Chinese military, some of the above could be true but the extent of Chinese troop involvement is ignored. China treated Korean and Vietnam war the same, they don't want US to be on their border. It is hard to imaginge they did not do all they can to support the Vietnam. Soviets did not have that much at stake. As Mao said -I would rather see my sodiers die at foreign land than having our homeland invaded.

 

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 01:59 | 6139021 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

I wouldnt say China got its ass kicked.  That was a limited engagement. And China as the fella below notes, was heavily involved in directly supporting the nva during the American war of aggression on Viet Nam.

[the third is less on point but interesting on its own]

 

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:53 | 6137915 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Douglas MacArthur biggest victory was when he used tanks with Ike and Patton against The Bonus Army aka unarmed American veterans and their families.   He is one of the biggest POS going and a f***king coward.  A bankster stooge.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:11 | 6137735 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Saddam's military consisted of 30-40 year old Soviet tanks and planes and a population divided between Sunnis, and the 60% Shiite majority that wanted Saddam to lose. The majority of Iraqis either helped us or didn't care. Iraq was isolated and surrounded by enemies. Comparing Iraq to China is silly. China will not be isolated, will have help from Russia, and none of our NATO lackeys will want any part of China. I guarantee you not one of them will lift a finger to help us. They've seen tens of millions of their people die in idiotic wars. We had to drag them kicking and screaming just to send a few thousand troops to Afghanistan. Only the UK helped in Iraq. 

We lost to half of Vietnam and are still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan after 10-15 years. Did we really learn from Sun Tzu? What was the last major war that we won? That was 70 years ago.

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:00 | 6139022 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

+100

years of sanctions too, covering everything from spare rotor parts to medicine for kids.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:44 | 6137093 rejected
rejected's picture

Are the people in the ussa willing to fight China over a couple of islands. That,,, will be the most important question.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:52 | 6137638 jonytk
jonytk's picture

is there oil involved? /s

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 18:10 | 6137976 Freddie
Freddie's picture

America is now Trayvonville - you know shithold Baltimore with 30+ murders a month.   Only idiots would fight to defend global billioanire con artists like the Clintoons and Bushes.

Go for it idiots. Go die for the Clintons and Goldman Sachs.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:24 | 6137267 yogibear
yogibear's picture

The Chinese manufacture almost all the US goods. Wal-Mart and other companies would be shut down in a conflict.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:02 | 6137688 deja
deja's picture

It would be an ironic way to bring back jobs and manufacturing.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:39 | 6137339 Super Hans
Super Hans's picture

Thanks JB for posting.  I always look forward to your pearls of wisdom....

Have you read The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors by Hornfischer? I thought that was a pretty good one.

Thanks!

Best Regards,

SH

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:48 | 6137464 Lea
Lea's picture

"The US Navy has been built and trained to fight this exact war. It might be costly, but the USN would quickly control all the seas,"

Jack, it's been sometime since you haven't been in the Navy, is it?

US Index of military strength, 2015. Official overall US Navy military power: marginal.
http://index.heritage.org/militarystrength/chapter/us-power/us-navy/

I'm afraid Tyler's infographic is right.

My sincere condolences.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:57 | 6137661 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

Jack, I think your assesment, here, is off for a couple of reasons. 

First of all, we would have to pull assets from Iraq and Kuwait and Germany, and the Persian Gulf in a way the Israel Firster crowd would resist.

SEcond, China would likely shoot down a satellite or three, and has sufficient anti-aircraft anf shore to ship missiles as to make life very difficult for an airforce and navy that has frankly not had to contend with the sheer volume.

Third, those subs would hit carriers and destroyers, and the Chinese air force would not, in combination with their aintiaircraft and electronic jamming, give any aircraft near their shores have an easy time of it - the usaf or navy birds are not going to just bomb radar sites and blind them - they have seen that movie.

last - the Russian navy would absolutely, positively help out, and together, they would cause devastating losses on the us navy and therefore air support.

And all for no good reason at all other than an Empire run by neocon militarist war profiteers.

 

reliance on big carriers and electronics is a liability.  the us military was unable to pacify iraq or afghanistan and both countries were also involved in low level civil wars.  1.3 billion chinese to a person would do all they could to fuck up our day.  Not something the US could win.  You're talking beating china with the air force and navy.  Not going to happen.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:01 | 6137685 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

1. We're fighting in their backyard. They don't need a navy to launch planes off their mainland. I don't know why you think the fighting will take place far from their mainland. The disputed islands are all in the South China Sea area.

2. All that money we spent decades ago gives us obsolete military equipment

3. We spend moar, but they spend smarter. Do you think they spend $600 on a hammer or toilet seat?

4. What do you think would happen to those B-2 and B-52 bombers headed to China? Do you think they'll make it over there? This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan we're talking about. 

5. How many tens of thousands of American lives do you think the American public is willing to spend in order to fight over some islands in the South China Sea? That area means nothing to the average American, but it means a lot to the average Chinese.

 

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:55 | 6137921 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Have to agree and/but point out three things.

1.  US Navy has decades of trial and error and training advantage over China.  One ping an one ping only.

2.  Missile tech may or may not be everything here.  We don't know what we don't know, meaning that we don't know what the US Mil knows about China's capabilities and we don't know what China knows about US capabilities.  There is info in the public domain but rarely is that a real significant part of the picture.  All that hacking (both ways) has to have some bearing.

3.  Will there be a war before or after we sell China good working combat systems like, for example, the A-10, which is superior to anything the US is going to use to replace it.

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:09 | 6139026 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

+1 but home field advantage and decades of prep likely makes USN experience in sundry other scenarios not a strong advantage.

 

As to the A-10, a beautiful bird, a squadron of those would have been perfect to destroy the ISIS convoy.  Yet time after time, that rag tag bunch of mercenaries was allowed to travel 30, 40, 50 cliks in convoy without so much as a burst of machine gun fire from an Apache.

 

Doesn't make sense unless you change a starting premise - that the US wants to defeat ISIS...

 

but I digest...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 18:21 | 6138027 LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

And what if, at the same time, China drops 1/2M soldiers on U.S. soil?

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:10 | 6138064 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

they'd never get them ashore.

 

edit:  seriously, reasonable people can differ about lots, this is not one of those things.  The Chinese can not now or in the near future land a half a million men in the US.  It is fucking absurd to suggest they could.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:51 | 6136848 youngman
youngman's picture

Who Would Win A Conflict In The South China Sea"

The fish

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:55 | 6137924 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Dunno if fish will like sunken reactors.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:52 | 6136853 world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

Echos of the the Roman Empire's collapse

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:12 | 6139030 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

probably a good case can be made, but why is it people forget that the Eastern Half - very much the Roman empire, too - survived for another 800 something years?

It is history that the Orthodox Greek and Russians still live with.  3rd Rome and all...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:52 | 6136854 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

the maggots win in every war

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:08 | 6136914 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

In actuality it's yeast that wins. With every war comes the chance for a new beer, bread, cheese or kombucha. Bright Side!

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:52 | 6136858 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Not the human race.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:53 | 6136860 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Short answer? No one but the death merchants.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:49 | 6137101 CPL
CPL's picture

Sure, they are going to have to grow their own food though, wipe their own asses and rebuild civilzation from scratch living in a nuclear waste land.  Not sure how big of a 'win' that is.  I personally doubt any of them make it past the coming winter.  If they do, they'll be handy with a shovel for burying the dead after burying the little ones and old ones.  Then their spouses.  They can be 'kings' and 'queens' of ash, it's obviously very important for them.

I say wish granted.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:56 | 6136871 heisenberg991
heisenberg991's picture

No more fucking around, drop a nuke on that sandy beach airstrip and Bejing and lets see who has a pair of balls.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:01 | 6136886 Headbanger
Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:01 | 6136891 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Yeah, because seeing who can act the dumbest is soooo beneficial to us all.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:13 | 6136944 Headbanger
Headbanger's picture

But it would solve the global warming problem fast!

Think of the poor hot polar bears!

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:04 | 6136905 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

I bet the Japanese would like to Annex part of China now as a kind of Birth Right since their DNA comes from China and Korea. That Fukushima thing is a damn nuisance and isn't getting any better.

But if I was Japanese I wouldn't want to be limited to just some Islands or even China's Biggest island.

Probably I would a big strip on both sides of major River and take it inland far enough to where the water wasn't polluted. Or maybe a Lakes Region or Southern Most Coastal Area for the Ports and Shipping.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:26 | 6136981 Jtrillian
Jtrillian's picture

The idea of mutual deterrence will only lead to our inevitable annihilation.  The world has allowed nuclear weapons of mass destruction while outlawing biological and chemical weapons - the ultimate hypocrisy.  The minute countries start lobbing nukes indiscriminately is precisely when the human race becomes an endangered species. 

But I seriously doubt that will stop us from using them.  What kind of intelligent species willingly commits mass extinction?  We do.  Is that intelligence or stupidity?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:58 | 6137666 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

spoken like a true armchair faggot.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:13 | 6137741 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Great idea. Let's start a nuclear war over a sandy beach airstrip. What could go wrong?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:56 | 6136873 Platinum
Platinum's picture

What America lacks in forces, it makes up for in their Diversity©.

/sarc

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 13:58 | 6136879 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Wars are not won on Infographics.

But thanks for the data, clearly we see a Secret Army/Navy in Japan. Don't you just love those Secret Armies.

"You should see what the limited US Navy Replacement costs are, not that we wouldn't pay it." LOL

Weapons, Equipment, Space Equipment, Undersea Equipment, Training, tactics, Experience using the Equipment and fighting in Wars... Plus Mobility/Logistics/Range/Reach/Projection.

Chose your Battle Field/Fights. If Japan fights in it' backyard it might do very, very well. And it is nice that the US has ports, Logistics, Technology, Support in Japan from which to project itself.

Brutality comes into play also.

How Brutal will China be in any war??

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:02 | 6137402 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

If they wanted to be "brutal", they'd coordinate this with a massive Amphibian Assault on Alaska (via the small sea gap between Russia and Alaska), landing Millions of Troops over a period of weeks.  In a matter of months they could add Tens of Millions, to take over the entire West Coast all the way to the Rockies. 

I don't see the Valley Girls, Jewish big shots, GayBLT's, Actors and Geeks of California fighting them.  Especially when the water is cut off.  Nor the Mexican slave laborers pitching in, other than maybe to the Chinese side.

Canada and Mexico would be treated nice and would not get involved, even if they wanted to.  Heck, for all we know, it might induce Mexico to reclaim parts of Texas, or act as Saboteurs within what would be left of USSA.  Anything is possible.

Wars have a way of morphing into something totally unexpected, so let's stop the bullshit Mil-school Sim Games, which are only recreations or extrapolations of the last wars.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:03 | 6137434 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

lol like a mobilization of that level would never light up sat recon like a fucking Christmas tree... oh yeah, no one would see it coming... you'd have 10 million Chinese doing the backstroke to make their way home after the sub fleet got done with them... well maybe less, sharks you know...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:16 | 6137502 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

Where were those sat recon when they surprised the empire's ignorant military and let alone russian subs sitting to hit your lala land . whatever helps you sleep turtle . You can't teach an ignorant .

 US Index of military strength, 2015. Official overall US Navy military power: marginal. 

http://index.heritage.org/militarystrength/chapter/us-power/us-navy/

I'm afraid Tyler's infographic is right.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:20 | 6137517 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

PTS, I'm not saying they'd suffer no losses, perhaps even large losses, but the US does not have the Bandwidth to stop an assault in the millions.  Doesn't matter if we see them staging and coming.

The USN would hardly come into play in the Bering Straight (60 mile gap), given that they'll have many more subs.  They get there via Russia, by roads and rail.  They could even do a Winter assault, when things are frozen over in Alaska.  Then proceed down via BC.  WA and OR would be toast, in days not weeks.  Alberta and Saskatchewan would do nice:  Oil, Cattle, Wheat.  They wouldn't even have to bother with CA, except to turn off their electricity and water.

You'd have to nuke Alaska itself to stop them, but then they'd just come down along the West Coast until they got to a radiation-free zone and proceed inland -- again in numbers that you could not stop.

I love the smell of 'Merican Hubris in the morning.  It smells like... Victory.

But, thankfully, the Chinese would and will not do this, as their 2000+ year history demonstrates amply that they are not so much into colonizing far off places (unlike Europeans and Americans), but to protect their own country/region and sphere of influence. 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:35 | 6137569 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Interesting comments as usual Kirk.

But I consider the West to have Country type men, hard men. I don't know much about the West except for where I lived and crossing miles of empty highway. Maybe the populations are light when it comes to country men, but these are also the kind of men that repair our infrastructure, tough.

But Civilians have little chance against trained men and that is your point. Lots of cities in California though not as brain dead as Southern California & LA.

There are military bases, but strategic assets would seem spread out and light in any invasion.

I haven't bothered to consider what is brutal, but you make your point well. I remember the Japanese murdering and Raping in Shanghai and as they moved toward Nanking.

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:16 | 6139033 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

I want to hear how you think the Chinese are going to move all those men over all those miles of ocean to land, and be supported in Alaska.

 

Like your posts, but that is batshit crazy, son.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:01 | 6136887 aliki
aliki's picture

no one - everybody loses

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:02 | 6136896 Parsecs Taxi
Parsecs Taxi's picture

What was the last "war" America "won?"

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:22 | 6136977 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

US versus Soviet Union 1946-1991.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:09 | 6137468 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Do you have a reference for date?

I guess the Cold war is often said to start 1947, but the Greek Crisis was 1946, and 1945 is quoted by others as start of the Cold War.

I know we knew the Soviet Union was going to be our Enemy after WWII and at Yalta, and we had made the Wobblies Illegal due to the Communist Bent.

I got this as my start.

1947 - Official War on Communism, Legislation to support Greece & Turkey,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#Government...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:24 | 6137537 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

I have observed your vapid idiocy the few times it has soaked into this space.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:31 | 6137546 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

LOL.  Good one, but we're talking Military War, not Economic War...

Which used oodles of fiat money -- made possible only due to the Dollar's GRC* status.  IOW... it was a Banksters' War.

* Global Reserve Currency, i.e. "Money for Nothing and Checks for Free".

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:01 | 6137682 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

your stupidity is nothing if not impressive.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:26 | 6136999 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

The war on White Men is going well, and it looks like the War on the Middle Class could be won this year.

Hoooorah!

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:39 | 6137576 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

This aligns perfectly with what I said earlier today on ZH...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 11:32 | 6136356   Kirk2NCC1701   

I said it before, and I'll say it again: "When all human agreements, norms, traditions and bonds are broken, i.e. when the bonds of Family, Community, Nationalism and Race are broken, there is no viable resistance left to organize against the takeover by the Usurpers, the Overlords -- whose name one dares not say w/o the greatest of reverence, lest it become a career-ending move."

If you think we're seeing Global Chaos, you're absolutely right.  It is exactly as intended by the Globalist Banksters and Zi'Borgs.

1. Old World Order --> 2. World Chaos --> 3. New World Order

 

Which ZH blogger "Herd Redirection" aptly labeled "Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze" from corporate lingo.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:38 | 6137068 spacecadet
spacecadet's picture

The war against the Constitution

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:15 | 6137235 dark_matter
dark_matter's picture

The wars on drugs and terrorism have both had their intended consequences. Do they count?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:03 | 6136897 optimator
optimator's picture

I'm sure any confrontatioin leading to possible conflict would see to the U.S. beefing up that area with quantity and quality plus combat experience.  As the smart Chinese PLAAF says, "It better to lose face than to lose ass".

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:04 | 6136903 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

US mil planners are the best in US history. That they would allow such an on-paper strategic disadvantage speaks volumes about the New Model Army implemented by Rumsfeld, et al.

Sandbox. You have 200 green plastic soldiers and I have a bowling ball. That is the implication.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:17 | 6136955 Zapporius
Zapporius's picture

Except they have a bowling ball too, and you have carrier group. Yankee go home.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:26 | 6137001 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Name two excellent Chinese bowlers and I'll answer with 1,000 Yanks. Same goes for fighter pilots.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:52 | 6137377 Lea
Lea's picture

"Name two excellent Chinese bowlers and I'll answer with 1,000 Yanks. Same goes for fighter pilots."

It makes sense you could, as you prolly don't even know the name of the Chinese president, let alone who can or cannot pilot a plane in China.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:48 | 6137613 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Hu Gives A Rat's Ass?

A name means nothing, it is washed away by your opponent's humble resolve - Sun Tzu

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:01 | 6137686 Lea
Lea's picture

"Hu Gives A Rat's Ass?"

Fail (of course). Hu stepped down in 2012.

"Man who shoot off mouth bound to lose face." (Confucius)

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 18:59 | 6138140 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Yeah - Asians cannot do shit.  Maybe you have not noticed a boat load of male and female Asian golfers who have become very good.  Some are Chinese, some are Korean.  The youngest golfer to play at The Masters was 14 years old and Chinese.  The youngster was amazing.

Go back to being buddy buddy with General Jack Weinstein who controls your entire US nuclear missile forces.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:31 | 6137030 spooz
spooz's picture

The US still has more of everything military, its just spread out around the world.  Maybe we should concentrate our efforts at defense, like the Chinese do, and spend money building the US economy and providing jobs instead of spending it on military offense to protect profits for multinationals that have no sovereign loyalty.

 China has every right to defend trade routes in its part of the world.  We can defend our sandbox and they can defend theirs.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:14 | 6137230 dark_matter
dark_matter's picture

I like that idea. Let's build some defensive islands off our coasts.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:38 | 6138221 essence
essence's picture

"defensive islands"

 

Are you kidding? 
I bet the "safe rooms" embedded in Long Islands Hamptons Mansions rival Cheyene Mountain.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:07 | 6136904 piratepiet2
piratepiet2's picture

According to Bloomberg, Xi said :  “The broad Pacific Ocean is vast enough to embrace both China and the United States"

=> imagine a line somewhere in the middle of the Pacific  

 

Besides, I do not think US will get European support for a war. 

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:09 | 6136928 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You better wait and see what sort false-flags are planned before you place that bet.

"9/11 changed everything."

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:31 | 6137029 piratepiet2
piratepiet2's picture

 

"9/11 changed everything"

yes, it seems to mark US decline. 


Wed, 05/27/2015 - 20:55 | 6138274 essence
essence's picture

You know, perhaps the weirdest thing about 9/11 is building 7 and how so many people ignore it.
It's like this enormous, pink, elephant shitting in the same room as you ....and it's ignored.

Honestly, when I read a post from the multitude of ZeroHedge Posters (and I mean articles, the Tylers, as well as commenters,) and the questions & ramifications arising from Building 7 symmetrically falling into its footprint in 7 seconds aren't addressed ...well I know I'm dealing with folk who refuse to acknowledge reality. Thus, their posts need to be filtered, their perspective is not to be trusted for it deviates from the reality.

"You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality"

 

 

 

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:24 | 6139040 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

pull it!

here is what should really amaze you - that the MSM has in essence refused to take seriously the various unanswered questions and inconsistencies, and focused on effort on demonizing everyone from occupy to the tea party to BDS.

Even if you think the official narrative is more or less what happened, you should allow that Building 7 was never addressed and several people on the 911 Commission itself apparently said it was set up to fail.  The guy running it, of course, was yet another Jewish Zionist.

 

How about an inquiry made up of legit scientists, skeptics and true believers alike, that is not controlled by the us government or chaired by Zionists?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:10 | 6136932 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Just concoct something then, like a buncha Chinese dudes doing a major shootup like those raiders did in Mumbai, only in Chicago.

Simple provocation is beyond the leaders we have now, thankfully.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:30 | 6137021 Anunnaki
Anunnaki's picture

Australia will have no choice

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:47 | 6137039 piratepiet2
piratepiet2's picture

no choice ?

that is hardly an argument

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:14 | 6136947 f16hoser
f16hoser's picture

Since the US Military is now comprised of Steers and Queers, the answer is obvious. Obozzo has denutted the military and has now surrounded himself with "Yes" men who only care about their next promotion. Military Tactics means nothing. Our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. Game, Set, Match!

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 18:15 | 6137996 Freddie
Freddie's picture

A lot of fat asses, latino gangs, trayvons, queers and women who have babies they have to take care of.  It is a social services military.

Anyone with an IQ of 50 will not fight for Obaola, Clintons and Bushes but there are a lot of Morons. Whotes fight to preserve a country out to destroy whites especially white males.

But ZH has a lot of former semen and soldiers who want to wave the MIC flag like idiots.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:20 | 6136949 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

Where's the beef? Nobody wargamed this yet? Find that hard to believe. And ugh... the graph fails to include Southern California McMansion assets. Come on guys, get with it.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:40 | 6137078 Consuelo
Consuelo's picture

It's been 'war-gamed' 50 different ways 'til Sunday Doc - but that's not the issue.   Arrogance and a perceived 'birthright' that dictates no-nation-shall-be-above-the-U.S. is the issue.

 

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:17 | 6136958 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

The Chinese see a foolish child of a President who is more concerned that rioters be allowed to attack police in the USA than keeping good international relations with our oldest allies.  There is no threat from Obama until he is personally insulted about something.  And then he will only hurt the US with whatever stupidity he comes up with.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:20 | 6136965 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

What sort of idiot would lend any creedence whatsoever to this article?

Let's compare the small number of on-station initially deployed forces of the US and a few of its friends and allies to the entire force available to China rather than all versus all. Hardy-har-har.

Let's assume that creaky old Soviet-era warships are the one-for-one equal of modern USN warships.

Let's assume that a nation that has a military filled with fully-vetted veterans and is constantly operating in real wartime environments and is capable of keeping its ships on station for months at a time is the equivalent of a paper peacetime force that hasn't fought anybody and is chained to its nearby ports due to the low reliability of its equipment.

Let's assume that no NATO naval forces will join a US-led coalition.

Let's assume that Australia will not participate.

Let's assume that South Korea will not participate.

Let's assume that Taiwan will not participate.

Let's assume that India will not participate.

Let's assume that China has the blue water naval power to break a blockade that can be easily maintained from a semi-circle of hostile nations that completely block its access to the world's sealanes.

What China is engaging in is a policy of littoral defence and area denial. They are hoping to keep the USN at a respectful distance from its shores. To refer to this as "power projection" borders on the bizarre. There is only one navy in the world that is capable of any realistic degree of power projection and it is not based in China.

Mass a half dozen carrier battle groups and the Navy can dominate any area of China it wants to dominate. Not that it has to. It can simply stand off far away from any coastal defenses and enforce a 100% naval blockade that will strangle China even while it hunts down every last merchant vessel that flies a red flag on the surface of the earth and digs out all the scattered Chinese colonial interests like isolated rats.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:36 | 6137052 rejected
rejected's picture

Your still fighting previous wars. Carriers are somewhat obsolete like the battleships in WWII.

Not sure the belligerents would let it go this far but the sinking of a u.s carrier will be the beginning of the end for u.s global power. 

Let's hope we never learn which of us is right.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:11 | 6137216 deja
deja's picture

Carriers are obsolete, which is why China wanted one so badly.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:23 | 6137263 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

And wants 4 more.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:20 | 6137784 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

why did Japan, Britain, Germany and the US build so many battleships during WWII? It wasn't until towards the end of the war that they figured out battleships were obsolete.

Carriers great against third world countries like Iraq, Panama, and Afghanistan. Not so great when parked off the coast of china, which has a few hundred anti-ship missiles it could launch at the same time. 

Fifty anti-ship missiles are launched at a carrier at the same time. How do you protect it?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:55 | 6137843 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

With the possible exception of the British Vanguard class battleships (built with leftover spare gun sets), I don't recall authorization of any new battleships in any nation after the outbreak of war.

Taranto (1940) showed the way towards the new capital ship, Pearl Harbor (1941) cemented it, and Coral Sea (1942) enthroned it. 

That means that battleships had ceased to be capital ships within about a year of the outbreak of the war and were certainly helpless against carriers any time after 1942. Even very small carriers were able to whip up on battleships, as per the disastrous Japanese death ride at Leyte Gulf in 1944.

Interestingly, Japan converted the final Yamato-class hull (IMS Shinano) to an aircraft carrier. It was ignominiously sunk on its maiden voyage by USS Archerfish (SS-311, if memory serves). Professor Morrison calls it the shortest-lived big warship in history.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:42 | 6138235 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Contrary to popular belief, the war didn't start on Dec 6, 1941. 

Battleships take years to build. They were building all those battleships in preparation for the war and during the war. The Germans didn't even have an aircraft carrier. They built plenty of battleships and cruisers. 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:55 | 6137396 Lea
Lea's picture

Let's assume the USA has won a war against a major power (we don't count WW2, as that one was won by Stalin, sorry).

So when was that?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:41 | 6137791 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

My goodness, whatever happened to the Empire of Evil?

RIP 1991

And the Russian people lost WWII. Germany got rid of its mad, bloodthirsty dictator. Russia was stuck with Uncle Joe and his ilk until Reagan spent them into the ground.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:43 | 6138238 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

The Russian people would have been better off under Hitler? LOL

Thu, 05/28/2015 - 02:36 | 6139052 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

jeezus.

 

 

of course, you're the sort of asshole who, in every Israel/Palestine threat mentions "thousands of Hamas rockets" {before and/or after referencing the Nazis - those stalwart critics of state terrorism} as if the violence is always and merely Palestinian aggression - which is simply false.

 

But I know that the truth, the facts, dont matter to you.  Indeed, some facts are so true it is "hate" to divulge them.

 

Is that right?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 18:54 | 6138124 One of these is...
One of these is not like the others..'s picture

Hang on!

I thought the plucky british won WW2?

(With a bit of help form the yanks when they finally showed up, although they were repuetd to be spending a lot of time chatting up our fighting mens wives and sweethearts with their cheap nylon stockings, and chocolate...)

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:26 | 6137542 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

whatever helps you mate .

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:48 | 6137593 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

And let's assume that Australia does not revert to its original role: a PENAL COLONY.  Of China, not England, this time.

Where Sidney's large GayBLT population gets to "bend over" in the Chinese controlled gold mines, just like other Aussies, and earn their daily ration via physical labor, not via office games.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:27 | 6137816 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

Australia was Britain's second penal colony. Any guesses as to what was Number One?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:06 | 6137709 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

Another ignorant assessment from one of the resident hasbara trolls.

 

Its as if you think Chinese and Russian and for that matter Iranian subs wouldn't be involved along with electronic attack, hypersonic shore to ship missiles and very challenging anti-aircraft.  The US would, without doubt, lose any carriers it put anywhere near there, even if, possible, they ultimately did "win" it would be at a heavy price and the Navy would have to rely on the Air Force for more than you apparently realize - an Air Force currently spread more thin than you understand.

 

What's your angle, how does Israel benefit from a US/China war. That's the question people should ask of people like you - disloyal and dumb as you are.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:25 | 6137805 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

Wasn't it Gallileo who proved that the sun does not revolve around Israel?

News to you, of course.

Is the Air Force and Navy spread thinner than they should be?

I certainly think so and am in favor of a crash program to rebuild our margin of superiority. War is coming and we are going to need every capgun we can lay our hands on.

What about you? Are you in favor of a defense buildup?

Or is that just another Jewish plot to enslave the world?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:34 | 6137840 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

what were the other jewish plots to enslave the world, again?  If you could provide a link to a previous comment, that would be helpful.

Just to establish, you know, if you are lying by false inference. I'm sure you understand.

 

Let's start with your cute variation on the Reduction Ad Hitlerum.  And go from there.  What were the "other Jewish plots" and when you've provided that information/reference, perhaps you can explain where in my comment I said anything about "another Jewish plot."

You might also explain if you always conflate Israel with "Jews" - or only when convenient to your rhetoric.

Good luck twisting out of this one, Tarabel.

xxoo.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:52 | 6137902 tarabel
tarabel's picture

 

 

If you could provide a link to a previous comment, that would be helpful.

What's your angle, how does Israel benefit from a US/China war. That's the question people should ask of people like you - disloyal and dumb as you are.

Galileo has already proved that the world does not revolve around Israel.

I asked you if you were in favor of strengthening the US Navy and Air Force in the face of an obviously approaching crisis and you go right back to talking about the Jews and calling me disloyal to my country.

So, once again, since disloyal hasbara troll me is in favor of arming up before it is too late, let's hear from Semper Fidelis you: Should the US Navy and Air Force be built up? Yes or no?

Or are they the Jew S Navy and Air Force, obvious khazarian banker plots to rob you of your liberty?


Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:02 | 6138150 Counterpunch
Counterpunch's picture

I talked about Israel, not "the Jews."  Not even a little.

But, I think your neocon warmongering ignorance speaks directly to your loyalty to American soldier, sailors, Marines and airmen.

The same kind Richard Perle and Bill Kristol demonstrate.

 

You completely failed to address my questions to you and went back to the same tired red herrings.

I tried, but can not take you seriously.  You repeatedly prove that you are unwilling or unable to understand my comments, and repeatedly and predictably try to play the hitler card when it doesn't even make rhetorical let alone polemical sense to have done so.

This makes you not only dishonest, but stupid.

 

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:26 | 6136966 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

Any battle fought within range of Chinese land based aircraft will be won be the Chinese (reverse of the island hopping the US used in WWII). The logistics of supply and reinforcement favor a land based campaign. That said, this would be fought with LOTS of self imposed restrictions on both sides. In fact, the US restrictions imposed by Obama would likely help the Chinese to win it.

I see the US continuing to fly single spy planes into the area until the Chinese splash one. The US will then either back down or try to do some type of retaliation in an out of the way location using missiles. I do not see the US sending up fighters to patrol the South China Seas, or sending aircraft carriers close enough to get hit. Neither country really wants war, both hope the other side backs down, but it will likely be the US to back down first.

The Chinese are not going to halt island construction -- in fact, US involvement is actually strengthening Chinese resolve - so that they have more extended bases to halt any US threats.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:23 | 6137262 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

You speak as if you think the titular leaders of the Chinese corporation known as China or the titular leaders of the American corporation known as USA! USA! USA! have actual decision-making powers. They don't. China and the US will fight, or they won't. However, neither Obama or Xi will be the ones who make it happen.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:21 | 6136975 spacecadet
spacecadet's picture

Good Morning everyone.

I want to repeat, you've heard me say it many times.... Don't do anything stupid!! We're in the backstretch, we came this far, let the next Guy or Gal worry about em. That will be all, carry on.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:23 | 6136980 spacecadet
spacecadet's picture

Can you imagine the irony of the next President saying " It was Obama's fault"  .... " I inherited this mess"....... " Blame it on Obama"

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:28 | 6137010 Anunnaki
Anunnaki's picture

From Hope & Change to Hopeless Chains.

Mission Accomplished!

The only upside of all of this garbage from 8 years of Pres. Peace Prize is that is going to make the Hillary campaign a non-starter. He will leave office with ratings lower than his paldefaced twin, Shrub

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:06 | 6137198 dark_matter
dark_matter's picture

We have such a well designed government with interchangeable parts. You gotta love it. /sarc

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:26 | 6136994 Spungo
Spungo's picture

Comparing numbers is not an accurate way of comparing things. Before Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union had a much larger army and a much larger air force. None of that mattered because the Soviet stuff sucked. In the first couple years, winter killed more Germans than the Soviets did.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:20 | 6137252 Benjamin123
Benjamin123's picture

I still refuse to swallow the notions (memes) that 1.-Russians are somehow immune to cold. 2.-Germans have no experience whatsoever with winters. 3.-Germans didnt know russian winters were worse than german winters. Because these things are closely guarded russian military secrets.

No one saw that coming, not fair, and all the soviet victories that took place in summer and spring dont count.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 15:42 | 6137349 optimator
optimator's picture

Spungo, and the largest standing army in Europe in summer 1939 was the very confident Polish Army.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:59 | 6137648 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

It was the combination of German hubris, plus irrational military decisions* (by Hitler himself), plus logistical weakness that combined with the Fog of War, and resulted in the Wehrmacht first being delayed, then getting bogged down in the mud by Autumn rains, and finally frozen in by the Russian winter.

"I love the Arrogance of Pride in the morning.  It smells like... Victory" - Kirk

* To obsess over Stalingrad, rather than take the Ukraine and Russian oil field in the south.  If I were an English bankster or aristocrat, I'd make sure that my counterparts in Berlin or Frankfurt became my PysOps accomplices, in that they (wittingly or unwittingly) got Hitler to obsess over Stalin and to make irrational military decisions.  Thereby determining the doomed outcome from the outset.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:26 | 6136995 Sanity Bear
Sanity Bear's picture

No one yet mentioned the Chinese cyber-counterstrike capability? They've had all these years to get into everything, facilitated in some cases at the highest ranks of the US government. Even without nukes involved I'd put long odds on US power grids surviving the opening volleys of such a conflict.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:29 | 6137017 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

All foreign pipes come through Alexandria, VA. A cyber-strike that gets through that portcullis is an obvious false flag.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:03 | 6137691 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

What about using a mini-EMP, as seen in "Ocean's 11" on said location?

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:22 | 6138193 Freddie
Freddie's picture

I guess you never heard of the ones coming through San Jose and Florida to name a few others.

 

Like this one.

http://globenet.net/network/

Interesting how one goes through Bermuda.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:47 | 6137113 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

 Even without nukes involved I'd put long odds on US power grids surviving the opening volleys of such a conflict.

Ridiculous.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 19:47 | 6138250 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Of course, because the US cybersystems are impenetrable. I've never heard of a US company or government agency being hacked

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:08 | 6137457 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

it depends on who they go after... they tried that shit with Google and got kicked in the ass so hard by the counter-hack that they were wearing their ass for a hat...

hello Chinese cyber warriors, meet weaponized Google... play nice, now...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 16:40 | 6137583 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

keep grunting

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:27 | 6137006 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

Stupid assessment.

Head-to-head fighting is old school.

Banks don't want assets irradiated, fools.

Look for an unnatural, natural disaster to cover the truth.

They live to deceive and get away with it.

They giggle like girls at the prom.

Laughing at the morons preparing for war.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:31 | 6137031 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

What about "duration of dissent?" The calculus relating to a populace's ability to resist during a stressing event.

Think Texas and weather engineering. Personally, we should wall Texas away from everyone else, but I do have compassion. Think about the brewing dissent that's been quashed by rain.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:37 | 6137057 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Since WSJ is the Source I have to think the article is propaganda for MIC Spending Increases which we have been seeing since last years DoD Budget Reduction.

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:30 | 6137023 Gypsy Ramono
Gypsy Ramono's picture

Yeh, but Amerika has Arnold 'The Terminator' Schwarzenegger, Sylvester 'Rambo' Stallone, Chuck 'Texas Ranger' Norris and John 'Bomb Iran' McCain. Australia will send Russell 'Gladiator' Crow and Mel 'Mad Max' Gibson. Then the US will send in the Mafia to take out your fuckin' Triads! Take that you slanted eyed, communist, dickless, motherless Chinese fucks. USA, USA, USA    

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 17:06 | 6137711 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

You forgot the Die Hard guy, Bruce Willis.  And the ruff & tuff US Bikers.

Don't mess with US actors or 'Merican Bikers, China.  Or else...

Wed, 05/27/2015 - 14:33 | 6137036 anachronism
anachronism's picture

The US can't be stupid enough to provike a military confrontation in the South China Sea, without having formed some tactical plan for response. The specific act of provocation which triggers a military confrontation is for China to choose.

Therefore I believe that the infographic deliberately understates the quantity and types of weapons systems that it would deploy by a wide margin.

But, with all that said, there is absolutely no strategic need for the United States to confront the Chinese in the South China Sea. That is the equivalent of China confronting the Americans in the Gulf of Mexico.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!