← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 64411695

130 posts 46 images /k/
Anonymous No.64411695 >>64411716 >>64411729 >>64411833 >>64412037 >>64412043 >>64412048 >>64412058 >>64412080 >>64412319 >>64412400 >>64412407 >>64412748
why didn't USA fight China back when it would have won?
were they "stabbed in the back"?
Anonymous No.64411716 >>64411721 >>64411729 >>64412057
>>64411695 (OP)
>when it would have won
we could win now
Anonymous No.64411721 >>64411725 >>64411729 >>64411741 >>64412117
>>64411716
then why dont you
Anonymous No.64411725 >>64411729
>>64411721
why should we?
Anonymous No.64411729 >>64411742 >>64411744 >>64411831 >>64411925 >>64411929 >>64412342
>>64411725
>>64411721
>>64411716
>>64411695 (OP)
America would crush China in the first two weeks then they'd draw it out for 1 year plus while securing some type of "duel government" in taiwan after America relents and gives up its control of the world.

Crazy that we're going to see an empire collapse and another rise in our lifetimes.
Anonymous No.64411741
>>64411721
Why don't we what?
>win
Win what?
>a war
Why would we start a war unprovoked? It's China that wants to invade Taiwan.
Anonymous No.64411742 >>64411764 >>64412391
>>64411729
>Crazy that we're going to see an empire collapse and another rise in our lifetimes.
yeah, china's not doing to hot right now. I wonder what will happen to all the bugmen when it implodes.
Anonymous No.64411744 >>64411748
>>64411729
>then they'd draw it out for 1 year plus while securing some type of "duel government" in Taiwan
Why would the US do this if they're already "crushing it"?
Anonymous No.64411748 >>64413303
>>64411744
america doesnt have the heart for large losses and forever wars.
Anonymous No.64411764 >>64411782 >>64411789 >>64412084 >>64413367 >>64413588
>>64411742
I've been hearing this since the ghost city craze in 2005 or so.
It's a pretty slow collapse lined with China buying up industry all over the world for some reason.
Anonymous No.64411782
>>64411764
be patient little one, these things take time.
Anonymous No.64411789
>>64411764
The problem with ghost cities is they are an albatross to the average chink citizen, not the CCP itself. Citizens buy up real estate as an investment, which creates a market for worthless apartments and cities that nobody is going to live in. This is a bubble that will inevitably collapse as the population ages and these 'investments' never see returns.
Anonymous No.64411831
>>64411729
Anonymous No.64411833 >>64411843 >>64411915
>>64411695 (OP)
Anonymous No.64411843
>>64411833
What is the function of those drones?
Anonymous No.64411878 >>64411915 >>64411947 >>64412270
Why the fuck have the chinamen been so butthurt lately? Even the Russians aren't spamming this much.
Anonymous No.64411915 >>64411921
>>64411878
At this point it's probably some humiliation ritual. Like this chink shill constantly posting >>64411833 inadvertly showing how shit the chink propaganda is
Anonymous No.64411921
>>64411915
Anonymous No.64411925 >>64411936
>>64411729
>Crazy that we're going to see an empire collapse and another rise in our lifetimes.
I love how thirdies always out themselves because they can't keep themselves from drooling over "muh multipolar world"
Anonymous No.64411929 >>64411932 >>64412122
>>64411729
Anonymous No.64411932 >>64411941 >>64412777
>>64411929
Anonymous No.64411936 >>64411941
>>64411925
>multipolar world
The last time there was a "multipolar" world was in the 18th century, a century where the third world got absolutely fucked.
Anonymous No.64411941 >>64412086
>>64411932
I like how they have to add in China's coastguard while not including the United States coastguard in order to keep it from being a one sided curbstomp.
>>64411936
well it was bipolar during the coldwar which TECHNICALLY means it was multipolar.
Anonymous No.64411947 >>64412270
>>64411878
because somehow between trump and xi's pissing match they're managing to spook both markets so there's a lot of jittery shit going on right now. there's an odd tension due to the way both economies are both leveraged by eachother and in favor of eachother, but there's a nationalistic desire to compete which goes against the intent of both markets.
Anonymous No.64412037
>>64411695 (OP)
The US doesn't fight nuclear powers, never has never will.
Anonymous No.64412043 >>64412054
>>64411695 (OP)
What sparked your meltie this time?
Anonymous No.64412048
>>64411695 (OP)
We could win now, but we won't anymore. You'll have to do it for yourselves now. It's been the most peaceful era in human history and all you thirdies have done is bitch and moan and call peacekeeping operations colonialism. Enjoy your multipolar world and hope we don't decide to participate.
Anonymous No.64412054
>>64412043
I knew a chink who would occasionally have anti-french meltdowns when ever the propaganda tube he subscribed to would do a rerun of some chink getting shot after trying to stab some cops with scissors
He couldnt find a job and had to go back tho luckily
Anonymous No.64412057 >>64412059 >>64412062 >>64412069 >>64412111 >>64412115 >>64412587 >>64412903 >>64413459
>>64411716
>we could win now
The Chinese pushed our shit in in Korea when we still had our WW2 army capable of fighting large-scale engagements. Our military since has shifted into dunking on small to mid-sized Thirdies while taking zero casualties, but we literally don't have the ammo stocks to go up against an army in the millions or to defend against tens of thousands of antiship missiles.
Venezuela not being able to do shit as we launch Hellfires at their fishermen is not the same as marching across China to "free Tibet."
It's not a matter of "our military could do it with enough will." We'd need to draft up a couple million men, put the shipyards back into action building Liberty ships, and start making the Willys MB again. China would be a WW2-scale war within the confines of one country.
Anonymous No.64412058
>>64411695 (OP)
>The entire PLAN and PLAAF
>Only part of the 7th Fleet
Very implessive.
Anonymous No.64412059 >>64412061 >>64412064 >>64412163
>>64412057
>when we still had our WW2 army
We didn't though.
Anonymous No.64412061 >>64412064
>>64412059
Forgot to include the pic
Anonymous No.64412062
>>64412057
Anonymous No.64412064 >>64412066 >>64412068 >>64412072
>>64412059
>>64412061
We had more of it than at any point since.
Anonymous No.64412066
>>64412064
>goalposts moved
Anonymous No.64412068
>>64412064
those guys are a little old to still be in the game
Anonymous No.64412069
>>64412057
>our
You're not American.
Anonymous No.64412072
>>64412064
Not in 1950, when the Chinese intervened in Korea. Most of their gains were made before February 1951. Also, a lot of that military buildup went to Europe, not Korea.
Anonymous No.64412080 >>64412098
>>64411695 (OP)
>why didn't USA fight China back when it would have won?
for what? the US is principally interested in peace.
Anonymous No.64412084 >>64412132 >>64413425
>>64411764
China's building ghost cities because it has amateur economists in charge of its economy. They're printing money and using it to build expensive infrastructure projects and on paper it looks like their economy is doing great, in reality they just printed tens of trillions of Yuan to keep their economy from crashing.
A smart China would work on food security first then infrastructure and job growth, securing a permanent trade corridor through Pakistan, and relieving tensions with the west. China's government isn't smart.
This is why they're building ships, missiles, tanks, reforming their government, building up their military. They're trying to emulate the west, but in reality the Chinese have no idea how to plan for a long war where they're out of fuel and starvation is rampant and cube meat is what's for dinner.
Anonymous No.64412086 >>64412715
>>64411941
The rationale for the coast guard thing is probably that any conflict would happen in China's corner of the world, so the USCG isn't going to be directly involved.
Which funnily enough is also conceding that the PLAN still doesn't have a global force projection capability.
Anonymous No.64412098 >>64412102 >>64412280
>>64412080
This, the main position of the USA for the past 70 years is maintenance of the status quo. The USA doesn't want a defeated China, it wants a belligerent China to commit to peace and mutual prosperity with it's neighbors.
Anonymous No.64412102 >>64412106
>>64412098
>it wants a belligerent China
why?
Anonymous No.64412106
>>64412102
China is belligerent, it wants them to not be belligerent and instead commit to peace and mutual prosperity.
Anonymous No.64412111 >>64412141
>>64412057
Those were chinese civil war/ww2 vets, and if you know this from the chinese perspective, it didn't go well for them either. The US military has been at war continuously since then, and the chinese military hasn't fought a real war since then. Idk why you thirdies never do this analysis both ways. Probably the same unga bunga tribal pride that makes you lose every war in history.
Anonymous No.64412115
>>64412057
>The Chinese pushed our shit in in Korea
the UN counter-offensive devastated the chinese, and the chinese spent the rest of the war trying and failing to make further advances
Anonymous No.64412117
>>64411721
Just because you can win a war doesn't mean you should start one.
Anonymous No.64412122 >>64412129
>>64411929
I can't believe that damaged balcony caused the entire 7th Fleet to sink, but it did.
Anonymous No.64412129 >>64412145
>>64412122
The point is that the US shipyards and shipbuilding capability has atrophied so much that small damage like this can't be repaired on time anymore
Anonymous No.64412132 >>64412241 >>64412391
>>64412084
>A smart China would work on food security first
Way ahead of you
Anonymous No.64412141 >>64412160 >>64412448
>>64412111
I think the current thirdie talking point is that being in a 'real war' would somehow cause the US military to revert to its factory settings and all the training, doctrine, and institutional knowledge gets erased.
Anonymous No.64412145
>>64412129
Yep. That's definitely what that image shows alright. New Chinese century confirmed. Ten thousand years to Comrade Secretary Xi
Anonymous No.64412160
>>64412141
They'll have to go a little further and erase all western warfighting knowledge for a few centuries before if they want me to take a thirdie military seriously.
Anonymous No.64412163
>>64412059
why do they keep trying to use the second phase offensive in isolation of the whole campaign?
once UN supply lines werent as stretched, you start to see chinese forces get evaporated by forces only half their size and by the fifth phase offensive, you see a total reversal of fortune, with the chinese trying multiple waves to overrun the UN defensive positions at the 38th and failing each time
Anonymous No.64412241 >>64412391
>>64412132
amazing that those civvies didnt rise up against their eaters despite being inside the fortifications already and presumably outnumbering the defenders at least 4:1, and being slowly butchered like livestock
perfect slave race
Anonymous No.64412270 >>64412294
>>64411878
>>64411947
Xi decided to impose tariffs on sales of rare earth minerals to be used on superconductors meaning they wanna strangle theone sector which is the entire reason the US even gives a shit about Taiwan and that the whole world needs for serious digital applications like defense. The US retorted with 100% tariffs on everything and both sides speak of a misunderstanding and a wonderful deal coming soon which usually means shits not gonna get solved at all.
Anonymous No.64412280 >>64412292
>>64412098
and its incredibly naive and retarded. Same mentality got everybody monke and his little monkeperium. Instead of crushing them in 2022 when it was clear the chimp outs wont stop and acking said monke. So next tzar can scapegoat his corpse and go full
>it was prank brah!

This stagnation policy will be the end of US hegemony. They can always go back being isolationist behind the oceans but the alliance and friendship networks built up since WW2 will crumble if they keep the current heading

another dilemma americans refuse to address is that if you show such indecisive weakness in helping putting vatnikstan, the midget with a god complex, in place, then what makes anybody believe you are a serious tard wrangler for changs? A actually big paper tiger that can deliver more of what its propaganda diarrhea promises
Anonymous No.64412292
>>64412280
Maintenance of the status quo isn't stagnation, it's stability. It's part of the reason Europe accepts that the USA is the sole superpower in the world, and that they're all willing to fall in line behind us. It's part of the reason Russia doesn't get stupid more often, and that China isn't trying to conquer SEA.
They know that the USA will provide their enemies with the capacity to defeat them. In some cases, the USA will get directly involved. The China/Russia/Iran/Pakistan/North Korea bloc together can't defeat NATO.
Anonymous No.64412294
>>64412270
>both sides speak of a misunderstanding and a wonderful deal coming soon which usually means shits not gonna get solved at all.
or the side that was starting shit realised they didnt have a hand to play and have decided that being alive with the status quo is better than not being alive at all. USA always wins, chinks get to at least save face this way
Anonymous No.64412319 >>64413324
>>64411695 (OP)
Ignoring nukes, US would still win now, it'll just be painful.

The answer is unironically racism. Overconfidence based on racism. Just count all the implessive posts on here. The US didn't stop the PRC early because they felt they were no threat and could act as a thorn in the side of the USSR. The US didn't impose economic guardrails 30 years ago because they didn't think China could develop so quickly. The US is acting like the Europeans did when they looked down on a young USA pre-WW1.
Anonymous No.64412342 >>64412969
>>64411729
>duel government
Ah, yes, the rare government wherein everything is decided by personal combat. Or are you just a thirdie larping as a human?
Anonymous No.64412391
>>64412241
>>64412132
>>64411742
Do they Chinese just always start eating eachother if they get stressed?
Anonymous No.64412400
>>64411695 (OP)
Because war is expensive. Why didn't China push forward when it would've won? Were they stabbed in the ass by their Russian lovers?
Anonymous No.64412407
>>64411695 (OP)
The USA saw China as an effective counter to the USSR and so we decided we'd try to become friends with them because we shared a common enemy.
This is why we agreed on paper with the one china principle even if our version of one China involved the RoC as its leadership and the CCP deposed and banned.
Anonymous No.64412448 >>64412492 >>64412523
>>64412141
well the US has lost more wars than it has won in the past 70 years, so yeah of course
Anonymous No.64412492 >>64412736
>>64412448
And other fun thirdie delusions you can tell yourself
>B-BUT YOU LEFT AT YOUR OWN LEASURE AFTERWARDS AND DIDNโ€™T ANNEX THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OR KILL THEIR ENTIRE POPULATION, W-WE WIN!
Kek.
>B-BUT THEY WERE POLITICAL DISASTERS!
Yep, which has no bearing on the face that the US grinds every single enemy it finds into thin paste, that they hide out in other countries or arenโ€™t fully exterminated and proudly wave a little flag around after the US decides to leave has no bearing on the US military as a fighting force, and thirdies, in their delusion to claim they won a kinetic exchange with the US, tend to forget about that.
Anonymous No.64412523
>>64412448
>retarded things thirdies are told
Anonymous No.64412587 >>64413186
>>64412057
US Army Korea just before the war was a bunch of fat losers. Imagine conquering the whole world with your boys and NOT going back to America to fuck your 18yo wife and start a successful business. It's a far cry from what it was in '45.

The easiest litmus test is just ask China. Clearly, they don't think they could beat Taiwan/US, otherwise they would have invaded already.
Anonymous No.64412715
>>64412086
Which is dumb, because in an actual big war the Coasties would absolutely be involved.
Anonymous No.64412736
>>64412492
It's insane to me that thirdies try to cite American struggles with religious fanatic guerrillas as proof that America can't win conventional wars. Guerrillas are what's left after you rip a country's conventional military to shreds. America had to have won the conventional war in the first place to even "lose" to insurgents in thirdie fantasy scenarios. I don't understand
Anonymous No.64412748
>>64411695 (OP)
For what purpose? From an environmental standpoint all chinese fishing fleets should be sunk because they overfish everywhere, take everything without regard to fishery health and cause seafloor damage at reefs.
Anonymous No.64412777 >>64412784 >>64412800 >>64412953
>>64411932
The key point being that 10 year ago, that red section was half the size. And in 10 years, the red section will double in size again.
Anonymous No.64412784 >>64412871
>>64412777
>And in 10 years, the red section will double in size again
and sprinters would be capable of breaking the speed limit by now, based on the progression of world records in the 100m sprint being broken
Anonymous No.64412800 >>64412871
>>64412777
>Naval shipbuilding policies spurred by annual 8% economic growth will continue by a factor of 2 every decade, despite the defense budget already reaching $450B and economic growth hard plateauing since 2020
Do you realize how delusional you sound you chinksect
Anonymous No.64412871 >>64412879 >>64412894 >>64412901 >>64412909 >>64412910
>>64412784
What kind of shitty analogy is that? We have a decent idea of China overall shipbuilding goals. They're currently building two carriers, and have one about to enter commission. So that's around 300k tons locked in for the next decade in carriers alone. They're not slowing down with destroyer construction and they're finally ramping up SSN construction now that their nuclear submarine technology is good enough, which was the last missing piece for the PLAN. In what way do you see China slowing down any time soon?
>>64412800
Robotics and automation help. Economy of scale too. Also, a lot of the previous budget over the last 20 year in R&D and building up of brand new infrastructure. The PLAN had to basically do the R&D work to rebuild their entire navy from the ground up. There's quite a number of brand new shipyards that just went online in the last 5 years or recently completed major upgrades. Now that most of the R&D is already done, and the capital cost of infrastructure has paid for itself, all that's left is to just continue mass production. Bringing up new industries always have immense upfront costs, but the cost taper off once said upfront cost are paid off and you continue to reap the benefits of economies of scale.

There's also the fact that countries are finally starting to ramp up exports chinese warships and submarines, helping to subsidize chinese naval production.
Anonymous No.64412879 >>64412924
>>64412871
>What kind of shitty analogy is that?
progression doesnt continue infinitely
Anonymous No.64412894 >>64412924
>>64412871
>A couple of piss poor turdie countries will offset building hundreds of vessels
It isn't even about the theoretical capability, it's about the economics of it being absolutely unfeasible unless you want the china doomers who say a collapse is coming in 2 weeks to be right.
Anonymous No.64412901 >>64412924
>>64412871
The more ships you build, the more you have to pay for maintenance, the older the hulls become, the more expensive per-unit maintenance gets. Chinksect please
Anonymous No.64412903
>>64412057
>Norks and chinks invade south korea to conquer it
>Lose territory to South Korea
>Lose 4-6x nore men than the enemy in the process
Result? Gleatest Chinee Victoly
Anonymous No.64412905
Tie me to a missile and fire it at the Three Gorges Dam
Anonymous No.64412909 >>64412917 >>64412946
>>64412871
What is China going to do with that many ships? They barely have the capacity to fuel the ships they do have, and in a war every single one of these is going to be scrap once the refineries catch fire, the pipelines are blown, and the oil wells are bombed.
China can build stuff, but we're not at war. This is a stupid waste of resources because it allows your enemy to plan for your defeat.
Anonymous No.64412910
>>64412871
> their nuclear submarine technology is good enough
Lol.
Lmao.
Anonymous No.64412915
West taiwan Schill's be slide posting aggressively.
Anonymous No.64412917 >>64412946
>>64412909
>in a war every single one of these is going to be scrap once the refineries catch fire, the pipelines are blown, and the oil wells are bombed
Fun fact: did you know that 80% of Chinese strategic oil reserves are directly on coastal oil depots or chambers? In addition to that, 90% of their oil comes from sealanes, with the remaining 10% from two Russian pipelines who have shown the absolute inability to defend against even meme threats.
Anonymous No.64412924 >>64412959 >>64412963 >>64412970 >>64413358
>>64412879
There's a lot of difference between infinite growth and China doubling it's naval tonnage again. Just counting their new carriers between now and 2035 will add as much tonnage as their entire destroyer fleet. China is starting from a low point, a country of 1.4 billion and with their industrial power shouldn't have had such a small navy to began with.
>>64412894
>A couple of piss poor turdie countries will offset building hundreds of vessels

Most of the world is piss poor countries, so yeah, a couple ships here and they will build up. Combine that with the commercial shipbuilding and it's more than enough.

>it's about the economics of it being absolutely unfeasible

Just like how it was impossible for renewables to work, how it was impossible for high speed rail to work, how it's impossible for large scale EV adoption to work.

>>64412901
Good thing the entire chinese navy is basically brand new. The oldest type 52D is 12 years old and 90% of the 52D are less than 10 years old. The entire PLAN basically got completely revamped in the mid 2010s. Maintenance issues won't kick in for another two decades.
Anonymous No.64412946 >>64412967
>>64412917
>>64412909
You might want to check on what China is doing for their oil/gas issues. America wasn't always energy independent
Anonymous No.64412953 >>64412995
>>64412777
>Line go up forever
Anonymous No.64412959 >>64412995
>>64412924
>There's a lot of difference between infinite growth and China doubling it's naval tonnage again
>china will just keep endlessly doubling their fleet
Anonymous No.64412963 >>64413032
>>64412924
>Just like how it was impossible for renewables to work, how it was impossible for high speed rail to work, how it's impossible for large scale EV adoption to work.
You mean the solar companies that are still running at a loss on the CCP's subsidies to undercut any country that still hasn't put tariffs on Chinese panels, HSR with stations closing down a mere couple years after opening because everyone takes the normal green train, and EVs that follow the exact same solar model?
>The entire PLAN basically got completely revamped in the mid 2010s. Maintenance issues won't kick in for another two decades.
You think so? Considering how poor Chinese shipbuilding is compared to Korean and Japanese shipbuilding, with lower resale prices and earlier scrapping dates? Okay, so even if we give them the full benefit of doubt and assume that their military shipbuilding standards are orders of magnitude better than the civilian side, let's give it a 15 year mid life maintenance and overhaul from commissioning, like the 18-20 years for US DDGs. 2010s puts the bulk of maintenance 5-10 years away in 2030, not your 2 decades figure. Or do you expect the chinks to just not do any midlife repairs and run their fleet into the ground?
Anonymous No.64412967 >>64412995 >>64412995
>>64412946
You mean solid to liquid coal extraction and fracking? Hugely inefficient for their geology and it'll produce 10% of current demand at most.
Anonymous No.64412969
>>64412342
This would be unfathomably based.
Anonymous No.64412970 >>64412979 >>64412995
>>64412924
>The oldest type 52D is 12 years old and 90% of the 52D are less than 10 years old.
Now do the Type 51Bs, Type 51Cs, Type 52s, Type 52Bs, and Type 52Cs.
Anonymous No.64412979
>>64412970
Genuinely embarrassing how more than half their surface fleet combatants don't have networked ADs
Anonymous No.64412995 >>64413022 >>64413120 >>64413156
>>64412959
>>64412953
Well of course it will slow down eventually, but not for the next decade. Just the PLAN's goal for 3 additional carriers by 2035 will increase their current tonnage by almost 30%. Just the carriers. And they're still in the ramp up phase for their SSNs.
>>64412967
>>64412970
All to be scrapped soon. Or just sold off. They are obsolete. All those older ship types only have a handful of ships each anyway. The type 52Ds outnumber all of them combined.
>>64412967
Large scale electrification of their industry and economy to reserve oil/gas usage solely for vital areas that can't be electrificated. Exploration of unconventional gas/oil sources. Synthetic fuel production. The 3 main areas.
Anonymous No.64413022 >>64413060
>>64412995
So now you admit that they're not going to be anywhere near doubling the tonnage by 2035, especially considering the 300k tons of the obsolete surface combatants that will be scrapped? Could've just said that since the beginning, retard.
>PLAN's goal for 3 additional carriers by 2035
lol, lmao. Someone tell the CCP officials to look at their down data. It took the Fujian 7 years to go from keel laying to launching, what makes you think that they can build 3 of them in 10 years when the keel for it was laid just last month, especially considering it's going to be bigger unproven design with a different propulsion system? They gonna build 3 of them at once and just hope that design works?
Anonymous No.64413032 >>64413397
>>64412963
>You mean the solar companies that are still running at a loss on the CCP's subsidies to undercut any country that still hasn't put tariffs on Chinese panels, HSR with stations closing down a mere couple years after opening because everyone takes the normal green train, and EVs that follow the exact same solar model?

In 2010, you would be laughing at the CCP poisoning their own land and subsidizing rare earth mining and refining, all for a very unprofitable and low margin industry. Not everything has to make money. No cheap EVs and solar panels=China is extremely vulnerable to foreign energy imports. A few struggling companies is worth it in China's eyes.

>Considering how poor Chinese shipbuilding is compared to Korean and Japanese shipbuilding, with lower resale prices and earlier scrapping dates?

Weird? If Chinese shipbuilding is so poor, how did they manage to take over Japan's high end LNG tanker business and continue to take over market share from the Koreans?

>2010s puts the bulk of maintenance 5-10 years away in 2030,

And China can easily handle that, the really expensive maintenance only comes if you try to extend the life of a ship vastly far past it's mid life maintenance. Until than, it's just regular maintenance. Do you think China is fucking Russia or something? Unless China builds something like 20 aircraft carriers and a thousand destroyers, I think the 2nd largest economy can handle the maintenance of their fleet.
Anonymous No.64413060 >>64413126 >>64413397
>>64413022
>So now you admit that they're not going to be anywhere near doubling the tonnage by 2035

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. It's not just carriers of course.

>especially considering the 300k tons of the obsolete surface combatants that will be scrapped?

All the older destroyers combined are like a dozen ships max. That's one year of production.

>especially considering it's going to be bigger unproven design with a different propulsion system?

Not having to switch from steam to EMLAS halfway through helps. The rumor is that China is building two right now, a type 003 and type 004 at the same time. It's possible, if a little rushed.
Anonymous No.64413120 >>64413219 >>64413323
>>64412995
>All to be scrapped soon. Or just sold off.
That's going to negatively affect the line go up forever.
Anonymous No.64413126 >>64413219
>>64413060
>That's one year of production.
Just making stuff up now, huh?
Anonymous No.64413156 >>64413219
>>64412995
What's China going to do when all of their coal mines are on fire?
Anonymous No.64413186 >>64413197 >>64413204 >>64413208 >>64413243
>>64412587
>The easiest litmus test is just ask China. Clearly, they don't think they could beat Taiwan/US, otherwise they would have invaded already.
Except your premise that China is a genocidal expansionist doesn't align with China's words or their choice of where to devote their resources.
China wants Taiwan not because they're an "other" who they want to crush to make them feel better about themselves, they want Taiwan because Taiwan is Chinese, it's full of Chinese people, and they want to finish what the civil war started and get all Chinese and all of China under one banner. By their words they want a peaceful reunification and by their actions which do NOT involve a simplistic, far-right buildup of a mass invasion force to beat the Taiwanese with clubs but instead are concentrating on building up the Chinese peasantry with high-speed rail and renewable energy, they just don't seem that interested in Taiwan.
Taiwan is a red line for them when it comes to foreign interference, but other than that they seem perfectly willing to have them off their coast as an extra-autonomous province to go with their 5 other autonomous provinces.
China has 117 autonomous counties. It is literally not a part of the Han political ideology that the Han rule all with an iron fist.

Saying China must be weak because they haven't invaded Taiwan is like saying the US must be weak because we haven't invaded Cuba. We have had Cuba under economic sanctions for 75 years; we have tried to assassinate their leaders multiple times; we staged an invasion by Cuban refugees, we blockaded Cuba to prevent them from becoming an offensive threat. We have done 100x more intimidation when it comes to Cuba than China has done to Taiwan, and yet we still haven't taken Cuba.

The lack of invasion does not imply lack of capability.
Anonymous No.64413197
>>64413186
>ignores Vietnam and the Philippines
okay wumao
Anonymous No.64413204
>>64413186
Unfortunately for China, Taiwan is also full of people who seem to have rather come to like being able to vote for their government.
Anonymous No.64413208
>>64413186
>Tibet
Anonymous No.64413219 >>64413237
>>64413126
Well this is what China is commissioning in 2025.
>>64413120
Those older ships don't add much to the PLAN other than as training ships. I seriously don't understand why China doubling it's tonnage within a decade is so hard for you to grasp. They're gonna to be focusing hard on carriers and LHD, which are gonna to boost their overall tonnage on a per ship bias immensely. Just their type 003 and type 76 going into service this year or early next year will add something like 120k tons just for two ships.
>>64413156
Marvel at how America magically set fire to thousands of them in the middle of the country.
Anonymous No.64413237 >>64413245
>>64413219
>Every single type of ship is the same as 6 destroyers
>Tonnage will double because I said so, despite even these boost years with extra carriers and amphibious ships not coming close to that number repeated over 10 years
Anonymous No.64413243 >>64413273
>>64413186
Hereโ€™s the problem with your comparison.
The United States doesnโ€™t claim that Cuba is part of their country.
Anonymous No.64413245
>>64413237
I guess we'll see in 2035
Anonymous No.64413253
West taiwan got it all wrong they are part of Taiwan. The west taiwan government is illegitimate.
Anonymous No.64413273 >>64413366 >>64413548
>>64413243
>The United States doesnโ€™t claim that Cuba is part of their country.
When has that ever stopped us from invading anyone?
Anonymous No.64413303 >>64413353
>>64411748
~ Some German aristocrat, circa 1916
~ Yamamoto, circa 1940
~ Mao, circa 1950
~ Saddam, circa 1990
~ Mollah Omar, circa 2001

If anything, thรฉ USA managed to achieve their sims while losing so few men the war might not have happened for America while their enemy get a demographic collapse.

They don't stop because of those losses but because they grow tired of killing the other side.
Anonymous No.64413323
>>64413120
No, it's not? The old boats getting replaced means even more orders for the shipyards. Line go up more.
Anonymous No.64413324
>>64412319
>didnt think china could develop so quickly
Are you of the opinion that people in power were not aware of the large scale offshoring to china nor the forward thinking to understand the effect, given these people at the time such began and up to the late 90s GREW UP WHEN THE US' MANUFACTURING SITUATION MADE IT WHAT IT IS TODAY?

Come on man.
YOU and YOUR PARENTS didnt give a fuck about china back then.
Anonymous No.64413353
>>64413303
> while their enemy get a demographic collapse
> Afghanistan's population went from 20 mil to 40 mil for the 20 years of american occupation
that's an interesting case of "demographic collapse". tell us more!
Anonymous No.64413358 >>64413417
>>64412924
The difference is the Chinese have funded nearly all of their government expense by creating a sham real estate market, that market hit its limit years ago, and none of the mega projects have yielded prosperity.

In a real war situation china will not have a way to fund their tommage that currently exists, forget having the. Let me stop.
China could have ALL of the naval yards. Doesn't mean a lick of shit when they can only staff 5% of them and fund 10% of the fleet.

And when 10% of the fleet are the only ships capable of standoff againt a peer what's going to happen?
Dragon magic miracles?
Anonymous No.64413366
>>64413273
pretty much never
Anonymous No.64413367
>>64411764
Rome was sacked in about 410 AD, the collapse of the western roman empire took another 60 or so years before it truly fell. This isn't even counting the hundred or so years prior of civil wars and prior political turmoil.
Anonymous No.64413397 >>64413417
>>64413032
>>64413060
>actual unironic reddit spacing
somebody ban this faggot, please
Anonymous No.64413417 >>64413426 >>64413439
>>64413358
>The difference is the Chinese have funded nearly all of their government expense by creating a sham real estate market,

I didn't know that a single mid level economical recession can end entire countries forever. I remembered how America got wiped off the map after the much worse great depression and didn't bounce back to become a global superpower in a few short years. Such a shame.

>And when 10% of the fleet are the only ships capable of standoff againt a peer what's going to happen?

Ok you got me, china is truly done for. Total economical meltdown and state failure is here to stay.

>>64413397
COPE
Anonymous No.64413425
>>64412084
>cube meat is what's for dinner.
Just putting this out there, but why donโ€™t we solve 3 problems at the same time by feeding Russians to the Chinese? It gets rid of the ziggers, it takes care of chink food security in the short term, and then it solves chink overpopulation in the long term when the prions kick in.
Anonymous No.64413426 >>64413450
>>64413417
Your failure to critically look at things and make false equivalences is all I need to know about chinkshills
Anonymous No.64413439 >>64413450
>>64413417
>Ok you got me, china is truly done for. Total economical meltdown and state failure is here to stay.
I'm reporting you to your senior for failing to adhere to party standards.
Anonymous No.64413450 >>64413458 >>64413494 >>64413538
>>64413439
>>64413426
Ok explain to me how a bubble, of which happen regularly every 5-10 years in major economies, can collapse China down to the point where they can't even afford to man their fleets. They're still having 5% GDP growth
Anonymous No.64413458
>>64413450
I wish a dumb chinese motherfucker would start lobbing missiles.
I really do.
Make it happen.
Anonymous No.64413459
>>64412057
Holy bug copium, you insects fucking lost in Korea LMAO.
Anonymous No.64413494
>>64413450
No one said that you fucking retard, stop making up words because you can't stick to your script and argue properly. Those are physical and not economic limits in the case of a war.
>5% growth
You mean a 5% goal that's closer to 4%, and realistically lower if you exclude their empty cities? What about 6.5$ in new debt generating 1$ in economic growth, vs the 1.5:1 and 0.8:1 ratio for the US and EU? China's economy is more fucked than even the worst EU countries.
Anonymous No.64413538
>>64413450
I don't know of any 1st tier nation where people working without pay for MONTHS is a common occurrence.
A single missed paycheck in my Land is worthy of lawsuit if the decisions that caused it were wrong enough.

And I'm supposed to think the Chinese are a threat? They're a threat to themselves, sure.
Anonymous No.64413548
>>64413273
Never, but I think the point is more that the one time part of the US tried to insist it was no longer part of the US, the US government didn't decide to wait 70 years, let it develop its own independent culture and hope to charm it back. And that was with a significantly less favourable scale advantage.
Anonymous No.64413588
>>64411764
What you think the suffering of the people is the suffering of the elite lol? This didn't even slow down buying the latest iTrash.
Anonymous No.64413679
West taiwain cities are built soo good.