Re: China Reply #90 – June 15, 2022, 07:31:23 pm Quote from: Mav on June 15, 2022, 07:12:49 pmStrange that you think diplomacy is useful only if you can bend the other side to our will. Even stranger than you believing diplomacy is a feature of their political dealings.
Re: China Reply #92 – June 16, 2022, 07:25:23 am Quote from: Mav on June 15, 2022, 07:38:53 pmSo a Cold War setting would be fine by you?I think we're already there.I'm a little young to remember the Cuban Missile crisis. I think our parents shielded us a bit from news like that back in the day, but I can't think of another time when I've been as concerned about the prospect of a 'hot' war. It's only a wrong move by someone away.Diplomacy is always worth the effort, and I understand at some high level the Russians, Chinese and Americans are all still very much in discussions...but the aim of those is to stop things from escalating further rather than pulling back.There is a danger, as we've seen in Ukraine, in being unaligned. You may end up fighting a proxy war for a Superpower where they'll supply you with arms, but essentially your on your own.Would Putin have been so bold if Ukraine had already been part of NATO?At the end of the day the big concern is that wars involving ground troops will prove to be very costly.Russia is struggling to tame a corner of Ukraine.How would their army go against the combined armies of NATO.How difficult would it be for another country to occupy and hold control over a country as vast as Australia.You would need a massive armed force and the logistics of resupplying that army would be a nightmare.The options for such an attack aren't so much military ones...they're economic, cyber attacks or...perish the thought, nuclear.
Re: China Reply #93 – June 16, 2022, 07:48:49 am NATO should have taken Ukraine in instantly, Putin's a bully but the Kremlin isn't full of morons, they are not going to go down a path mutually assured destruction. All these powers have tactical nuclear weapons, much smaller devices than those used against Japan but still capable of destroying an air or naval base in a single blow. If there was any serious intent to use nuclear weapons I think they would have used these smaller devices by now because they are unlikely to cause an escalation.So for me that is a huge tell, this is about wealth and power and nothing to do with ideology. Last Edit: June 16, 2022, 07:52:43 am by LP
Re: China Reply #94 – June 16, 2022, 09:32:48 am China would occupy Australia fairly easily imho given everyone lives on the coast.They have massive air superiority and would parachute troops in.Don't see any ground force major battles at all. They also have the largest Navy in the world and would bring in supplies to the coastal areas with air cover.The USA would have to intervene early or we would be cooked very quickly.Being a multicultural society I don't expect the same nationalistic defense we have seen from Ukraine either..
Re: China Reply #95 – June 16, 2022, 11:14:00 am I think you’re vastly overestimating China’s military capacity EB … and underestimating our defence assets.I’m working today - on a rain break - but I will provide further details when I get home.Remember that China has one aircraft carrier - an ex-Soviet vessel that was never finished. It’s very old technology and would be easy meat for our Collins class subs and air to surface missiles. Last Edit: June 16, 2022, 11:16:51 am by DJC
Re: China Reply #96 – June 16, 2022, 12:52:23 pm It's taken Russia an army of well over 100,000 men several months to gradually capture territory in a country with which it shares a common border. How much harder to conquer an island nation over 7000km away.Yes, our population is spread along the coast, but that coast stretches for many 1000s of kilometres and we also have many larger inland population centres especially through Victoria, New South wales and QueenslandHow hard would it be to transport troops and supplies in the numbers that would be required to take territory.That assumes no intervention or support from other countries for our cause which would make the task even more difficult and leave the attacker open for retaliation from others.
Re: China Reply #97 – June 16, 2022, 01:00:07 pm Quote from: Lods on June 16, 2022, 12:52:23 pmIt's taken Russia an army of well over 100,000 men several months to gradually capture territory in a country with which it shares a common border. How much harder to conquer an island nation over 7000km away.Yes, our population is spread along the coast, but that coast stretches for many 1000s of kilometres and we also have many larger inland population centres especially through Victoria, New South wales and QueenslandHow hard would it be to transport troops and supplies in the numbers that would be required to take territory.That assumes no intervention or support from other countries for our cause which would make the task even more difficult and leave the attacker open for retaliation from others.With all due respect to everything being considered, Russia is exercising restraint because people are not interested in wiping out the local populace. They want to take it over, not eliminate it. The west over simplified the Russian failures. When the conflict is over, Russia want to retain its stronghold, by aligning the populace with their goals. If they wanted to flatten it, and take it, they would have done it by now, and I expect that this is the status quo being aimed for.The Chinese are using subterfuge anyway. Purchase it all, and then after wards you dont need to invade it. You get it by proxy. Go to Glen Waverley and Box Hill. Take a walk around. Its not very western there anymore, and you feel like a tourist in your own neighbourhood.Ideology is at the heart of every war. Politics and resources along with ideology. The key is eliminating identity which is why once you have a foreign nation going "same same" you are ripe for the picking by them, unless you are the stronger one.China is way more interesting in Taiwan than it will ever be in Australia. Our economy is its personal bank account.
Re: China Reply #98 – June 16, 2022, 01:49:33 pm China would squash us like an ant if they wanted to.
Re: China Reply #99 – June 16, 2022, 02:54:38 pm Quote from: Gointocarlton on June 16, 2022, 01:49:33 pmChina would squash us like an ant if they wanted to.They would, because they have nuclear weapons.Much, much harder to defeat and occupy a country our size with military alone.
Re: China Reply #100 – June 16, 2022, 03:58:29 pm Quote from: Lods on June 16, 2022, 02:54:38 pmThey would, because they have nuclear weapons.Much, much harder to defeat and occupy a country our size with military alone.Helps that they are a led by a tyrant and a loony.
Re: China Reply #101 – June 16, 2022, 11:11:54 pm OK, let's look at EB's suggestion that China could invade Australia by landing paratroops. The Chinese airforce has the Y-20 transport, a knock off of the C-17 Globemaster but with dodgy, underpowered turbofan engines that render it unreliable and underpowered in comparison to the C-17. The Y-20 can transport around 200 paratroops or one Type 99 tank (roughly equivalent to the Leopards that we scrapped around ten years ago). The Y-20 would have to land on a suitable airstrip in order to unload its tank. The Y-20 has a range of just under 8,000km, meaning that they could reach northern Australia, drop their paratroopers, then crash into the sea on the way home. China's J-20 "fifth generation" fighter jet has serious problems with its engines and cannot carry the weapons or perform the operational tasks the Chinese were hoping for. That means that the Y-20s, on their suicide paratroop delivery mission would have no protection and would be defenceless against our Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35s. Even if some paratroops managed to land, they would lack heavy weapons and would be slaughtered by our integrated infantry and armour battle groups.An amphibious assault would probably have a slightly greater chance of success but only if it was protected by air superiority. China's aircraft carrier could not provide that in the face of threats from our far more sophisticated surface warships, submarines and land-based aircraft.China has massive armed forces but, like Russia, they spend a fraction of what the USA invests in its military. Chinese military hardware is almost exclusively cheap copies of Russian weaponry and is decades behind western military technology. More importantly, their command and control is stuck in the quagmire that is the Chinese Communist Party. Political extremism may suppress a population but it doesn't have the innovation and free thinking that wins wars.Of course, China could obliterate us with nuclear weapons but why would it do that and face nuclear obliteration from the our allies, defence partners and its long term opponents? A conventional warfare attack on Australia is beyond China's capacity. The greatest threat China poses to Australia, apart from shutting down markets, is cyber warfare and we should be savvy enough to counter that.
Re: China Reply #102 – June 22, 2022, 05:18:34 pm Quote from: DJC on June 16, 2022, 11:14:00 amI think you’re vastly overestimating China’s military capacity EB … and underestimating our defence assets.I’m working today - on a rain break - but I will provide further details when I get home.Remember that China has one aircraft carrier - an ex-Soviet vessel that was never finished. It’s very old technology and would be easy meat for our Collins class subs and air to surface missiles.DJ, Think we might be under estimating them, they seem to have been busy......https://au.yahoo.com/news/chinese-jets-scrambled-after-act-of-intimidation-above-taiwan-000024138.htmlhttps://interestingengineering.com/china-carrier-the-fujianhttps://eurasiantimes.com/us-fears-losing-air-superiority-to-china-by-2035/They appear to be testing the waters literally and its clear why they want some of those Pacific nations with nice large deep water Harbours and to upgrade airstrips. They also have been investing in air tankers to replace some of their ageing Soviet types, I see the Chinese military lacking the experience of the USA but having the advantage of being closer to Taiwan and being able to deploy more numbers quicker. IMO its more concerning everyday as the Chinese practice and try and give their military more exposure to real life battle experience and just push the boundaries more and in 2023/24 I fear Taiwan will be blockaded and then face invasion unless the USA lift their game and show more intent which is doubtful imo under a Biden Government, the man himself has said he would intervene but his advisors have used the word " assist" and pulled back on his more assertive threats to China so I'm not having a crack at Joe but more the use of the phrase " Strategic Ambiguity" as a policy which gives the USA an out.
Re: China Reply #103 – June 22, 2022, 07:21:05 pm Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 on June 22, 2022, 05:18:34 pmDJ, Think we might be under estimating them, they seem to have been busy......https://au.yahoo.com/news/chinese-jets-scrambled-after-act-of-intimidation-above-taiwan-000024138.htmlhttps://interestingengineering.com/china-carrier-the-fujianhttps://eurasiantimes.com/us-fears-losing-air-superiority-to-china-by-2035/They appear to be testing the waters literally and its clear why they want some of those Pacific nations with nice large deep water Harbours and to upgrade airstrips. They also have been investing in air tankers to replace some of their ageing Soviet types, I see the Chinese military lacking the experience of the USA but having the advantage of being closer to Taiwan and being able to deploy more numbers quicker. IMO its more concerning everyday as the Chinese practice and try and give their military more exposure to real life battle experience and just push the boundaries more and in 2023/24 I fear Taiwan will be blockaded and then face invasion unless the USA lift their game and show more intent which is doubtful imo under a Biden Government, the man himself has said he would intervene but his advisors have used the word " assist" and pulled back on his more assertive threats to China so I'm not having a crack at Joe but more the use of the phrase " Strategic Ambiguity" as a policy which gives the USA an out.The Chinese might be lacking the military experience of the US but like their Russian mates, they have the US covered in nut job factor. They are out there looking for trouble and will be only to happy to engage with anyone who entertains their poking. 1 Likes
Re: China Reply #104 – June 22, 2022, 07:43:20 pm Quote from: Gointocarlton on June 22, 2022, 07:21:05 pmThe Chinese might be lacking the military experience of the US but like their Russian mates, they have the US covered in nut job factor. They are out there looking for trouble and will be only to happy to engage with anyone who entertains their poking.You don't have to use nuclear weapons and other heavy hitting methods of war....You just have to have the enemy believe you are crazy enough to use nuclear weapons etc.....
Topic: China (Read 7333 times)
previous topic - next topic
