Analyst: We don't have enough weapons to fight China

Hotair ^ | 01/23/2023 | Jazz Shaw

[Nextrush]

Gaslighting from the MIC we have a big nuke advantage over China that’s for sure.

[ClearCase_guy]

China would be a naval war. China needs to import a lot of food and fuel. And China funds itself by exporting a lot of goods. A strong navy could really interrupt their import-export business. And as I understand it, the Chinese navy is mostly designed for coastal defense rather than defending supply chains far from home.

I don’t think it is in our interests to mess with China. But if we did, I think we could cripple them without using up too many weapons.

[Mouton]

We are NOT going to fight a land war in China. IMO we could not even take and hold Hong Kong.

[toddausauras]

Why would the compromised u.s. government want to fight their bosses?

[Qwapisking]

Isn’t that the point? Deplete the arms, the oil reserves and we lose. Then blame Trump.

[Spktyr]

The problem is that they have land links to the rest of Asia and while those can be cut, it can be difficult given what has to be overflown to get to them. Blockading their coast will hurt them, but it won’t shut them down; they’ll just divert to their land links.

[devere]

You are correct. We could blockade the Straits of Malacca with 2 ships and 60% of China’s oil supplies would be stopped. China knows it and they are not going to invade Taiwan. Even if they “won” it would be a disaster for them.

[DesertRhino]

that’s what we need right now, a land war in Asia.

[DesertRhino]

“China would be a naval war.”

Well, our destroyers are deadly in ramming attacks.

[Secret Agent Man]

This is conventional weapons. This is why we’re sending everything to be quickly wiped out by russia in ukraine. So we cant help taiwan. Joe and China have this arrangement as what he must do.

[Jonty30]

Hence the reason for the war in Ukraine.

[Cronos]

Taiwan, rather the Republic of China, is an island and can defend itself.

Besides which, Japan, Vietnam, India are Chinese neiand highly wary of China

[Cronos]

You do realise that Taiwan, ie the Republic of China, is an island?

[familyop]

Then we need more funding for our military forces.

[nathanbedford]

To the degree that this alleged shortage of weapons to defend Taiwan has occurred because we have foolishly supplied Ukraine with weapons is advanced to generate opposition to the war in Ukraine, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The issue is, should we be supplying weapons to Ukraine? Should we be committed to defend Taiwan either with naval power, airpower, troops on the ground in Taiwan or by way of distant blockade in places like the Straits ofMalacca? Should we be committed to supply Taiwan with armaments to defend itself along the lines that we are currently supplying them to Ukraine? Should we consciously avoid these entanglements?

These questions should be answered with resort to the vital national interests of the United States. If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, the military-industrial complex should be galvanized to produce the weapons required to enforce whatever option is deemed to be in the national interest.

The said history of America time and again is that it has found itself involved in wars for which we were utterly unprepared. With the size of the budget currently devoted to preparedness, it is inconceivable that we have not space and funds enough to acquire the logistical supply required. Too often in our history we have left our national defense be orphaned in the budget process. One need only judge our preparedness on December 7, 1941. Shockingly, a short five years later we were appallingly unprepared for our "police action" in Korea.

Has the debacle of Afghanistan fallen into the memory hole?

If in the downturn, that I expect will be far more painful than our politicians are currently contemplating, is so severe that there is a shortfall of money for defense then and only then should budgeting considerations dictate national defense strategy. Otherwise, national defense requirements should dictate defense budgets.

Our national defense budget is so big that it is time to question whether we are allocating funds properly. For example, we have to review the role of aircraft carriers on a cost-benefit basis. A multibillion-dollar aircraft carrier with its support ships and logistical trail can buy an awful lot of other weapons at a time when aircraft carriers are becoming more and more vulnerable when confronting nations like China that are possessed of hypersonic weapons.

It is time to let national defense considerations be judged on a rational basis and stop letting the tail wag the dog. Are we buying aircraft carriers because the military-industrial complex feeds off them? Are we to change our policy in Ukraine because we're short a few Stinger missiles?

Are we incapable of rational defense planning because our planners are not concerned with national defense but with defense boondoggles?

[Night Hides Not]

Where did that saying come, “never fight a land war in Asia”?

[familyop]

"Has the debacle of Afghanistan fallen into the memory hole?"

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush said that the War on Terror might go on for 30 years and would require much patience. Many people chatting about politics have failed to realize the purposes of interventions in the Middle East.

One purpose was to prevent invasions and thefts of energy resources in the Middle East. Another was to discourage further direct attacks against the West. Another yet, was to prevent Iran from expanding in the Middle East and forcibly turning more nations against the West, at least to some extent. And yes--oil.

[familyop]

Your comments about defense were well informed, logical and well worth consideration. There are differences of opinions on many less important issues between the various nations, but thank goodness for Germany and the other members of our defense alliance!

[familyop]

"Are we buying aircraft carriers because the military-industrial complex feeds off them?"

We have kept them at least until now, because they are mobile airports. :)

I'll leave the question of keeping them to the generals and admirals. Would our aircraft be less vulnerable on land in the vicinity of our enemies?