#2 I don't see what China has done to harm me. Who has it invaded? What actions has it taken to hurt me? Seems like they buy my debt and trying to sell me things at favorable prices (the horror).
I guess if they invade Taiwan (which they haven't done) we'll have to nuke their fleet in the Straight. No different then how we were going to nuke the Soviet armies in Europe if they broke through the Fulda Gap.
I think they will. Tactical nuke usage in the event of losing a conventional conflict with a great power advesary has been US doctrine since the beginning of the Cold War.
You don’t think they’ll worry that would trigger a reprisal? Isn’t it easier just to discourage Russia and China with carriers as we’ve been doing for decades? This US retrenchment seems unwise to me.
During the Cold War America calculated that in order to prevent the Soviets from tank rushing western Germany, we would need conscription and much higher defense spending. The Soviets always had more artillery tubes and tanks than we did.
Instead of doing that, Eisenhower decided to rely on nukes. They gamed out what would happen is Soviet tanks broke through the Fulda Gap and said "we are going to spend more on butter, and if that fails we will use tactical nukes in Central Europe to blunt Soviet armored spearheads.
This was the correct decision. It allowed us to grow our economy faster and win the Cold War.
Trying to match China ship for ship, missile for missile, and drone for drone, in the Taiwan Straight is a fool's errand. We should adopt the same attitude we had about Central Europe during the Cold War.
What do you mean matching China? We vastly outnumber China. 11 super carriers compared with their 3 aircraft carriers. Our carriers support more craft too. These numbers hold for almost every category of military resource. We have more than 4 times the aircraft for example. We already more than match them.
Are you seriously suggesting that these resources are better used “on the homeland” as Trump is claiming? For what? What do you intend them to do that is more important than discouraging Russia and China? I’m just trying to understand the logic here. Unless you’re suggesting we draw down our military, what is the mission that is a better use than providing a bulwark?
China is the worlds #1 industrial power. Taiwan is 81 miles from china. It's over 6,000 miles from America.
I fully intend to "discourage" china by making it clear we will use nukes. Making conventional warfare pointless. If China believes we won't use nukes they will (correctly) conclude they can win a conventional conflict.
Do you have thoughts on the broad tariff threats realigning former allies towards China?
I'm trying to fit trumps tariffs on Japan especially into the framework you put forward. While on the economic side "Trade Warriors" want tariffs, it seems that all four geopolitical camps would want to strengthen ties with our allies in the region.
The culture warrior camp cares less about allies in the region.
I do not think the Japanese will realign towards China. I think the DPP will be put in a hard place in Taiwan, and certain countries in SE Asia will be out. But I don't see a realignment in S Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, or the Philippines, or India for that matter. The country most likely to really change on this basis is Vietnam, IMHO.
I simultaneously:
1) Don't want to live in China
2) Don't understand how China threatens me
#1 I think is self explanatory.
#2 I don't see what China has done to harm me. Who has it invaded? What actions has it taken to hurt me? Seems like they buy my debt and trying to sell me things at favorable prices (the horror).
I guess if they invade Taiwan (which they haven't done) we'll have to nuke their fleet in the Straight. No different then how we were going to nuke the Soviet armies in Europe if they broke through the Fulda Gap.
Do you actually believe the US would use nuclear weapons, which China and Russia also have, in the ways that you describe? I don’t.
I think they will. Tactical nuke usage in the event of losing a conventional conflict with a great power advesary has been US doctrine since the beginning of the Cold War.
You don’t think they’ll worry that would trigger a reprisal? Isn’t it easier just to discourage Russia and China with carriers as we’ve been doing for decades? This US retrenchment seems unwise to me.
During the Cold War America calculated that in order to prevent the Soviets from tank rushing western Germany, we would need conscription and much higher defense spending. The Soviets always had more artillery tubes and tanks than we did.
Instead of doing that, Eisenhower decided to rely on nukes. They gamed out what would happen is Soviet tanks broke through the Fulda Gap and said "we are going to spend more on butter, and if that fails we will use tactical nukes in Central Europe to blunt Soviet armored spearheads.
This was the correct decision. It allowed us to grow our economy faster and win the Cold War.
Trying to match China ship for ship, missile for missile, and drone for drone, in the Taiwan Straight is a fool's errand. We should adopt the same attitude we had about Central Europe during the Cold War.
What do you mean matching China? We vastly outnumber China. 11 super carriers compared with their 3 aircraft carriers. Our carriers support more craft too. These numbers hold for almost every category of military resource. We have more than 4 times the aircraft for example. We already more than match them.
Are you seriously suggesting that these resources are better used “on the homeland” as Trump is claiming? For what? What do you intend them to do that is more important than discouraging Russia and China? I’m just trying to understand the logic here. Unless you’re suggesting we draw down our military, what is the mission that is a better use than providing a bulwark?
These aircraft carriers are walking coffins.
China is the worlds #1 industrial power. Taiwan is 81 miles from china. It's over 6,000 miles from America.
I fully intend to "discourage" china by making it clear we will use nukes. Making conventional warfare pointless. If China believes we won't use nukes they will (correctly) conclude they can win a conventional conflict.
Do you have thoughts on the broad tariff threats realigning former allies towards China?
I'm trying to fit trumps tariffs on Japan especially into the framework you put forward. While on the economic side "Trade Warriors" want tariffs, it seems that all four geopolitical camps would want to strengthen ties with our allies in the region.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-japan-south-korea-will-jointly-respond-us-tariffs-chinese-state-media-says-2025-03-31/
The culture warrior camp cares less about allies in the region.
I do not think the Japanese will realign towards China. I think the DPP will be put in a hard place in Taiwan, and certain countries in SE Asia will be out. But I don't see a realignment in S Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, or the Philippines, or India for that matter. The country most likely to really change on this basis is Vietnam, IMHO.