China vs USA: War predictions

>>34757670

100%

IMHO

gdamn gooks

>>34757670
Very. However, it probably wont be China first striking the US. Most likely it will be China attacking a US ally (phillipines, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) forcing the US to respond militarily. Remember China has ongoing border disputes with all their neighbors, and in times of economic hardship, which comes to every country no matter what the communist party will bow to the nationalist factions and start a fight on one of these disputed zones.

File: Blackjack.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>34757670
25%.

And if there is a conflict it will be confined to a single incident such as a jet shoot down or warship getting sunk.

China has little interest in fighting anyone. What it is interested in is being taken seriously and supplying its future.

They still have a few decades of growth before they are fully developed, by that stage they will be resource hungry and have already cemented their claim to the SCS.

The US will never act first in regards to resource exploitation of the SCS. Their primary concern is merchant traffic - which China has no reason to prevent. China knows that the US leadership is constantly worried about reelection so decisive action is unlikely.

Once china is close to fully developed, say in 2040-50, they will have a population of ~1.5bn and their primary concern will be resources, this makes a conflict with Russia far more likely due to the embarrassment of riches in poorly defended Siberia.

With the rampant faggotry and feminism that the democrats have infected our military with, we're going to get our asses kicked by the Chinks within a decade or two.

The U.S. military is now little more than a liberal arts college campus in uniform.

>>34757873
>The U.S. military is now little more than a liberal arts college campus in uniform.
Just the Air Force. The other branches have a chance of recovering from the Obama era.

>>34757854
>of riches in poorly defended Siberia.
Like what? Poor quality oil, a few precious minerals, and shit timber? None of those will be worth going to war over and occupying Siberia for the land is a waste, you can't do anything productive there (farming, etc).

>>34757892
>The other branches have a chance of recovering from the Obama era.

Sure they do.

When they rescind the "bitches on the line" rule and put the faggots back in the closet, I might believe you, but as it stands now, that's not going to happen.

>>34757897

>Siberia holds just under 80 percent of Russia's oil resources, according to the government. It is also home to around 85 percent of its natural gas, 80 percent of its coal and similar amounts of precious metals and diamonds, and holds a little over 40 percent of the nation's timber resources, making it a prime location in which to exploit those other resources.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100823089

>>34757670
>How likely is a conflict between the two in the next 30 years?
If the chinks accept their economic collapse and turn into hong kong, then zero percent.
If they chinks try to claw their way out of economic collapse with wartime economy, then there will be a guaranteed proxy war based around the gook peninsula.

>>34757670
RAND did a study on it.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html

File: rand Screen-Shot-2015-04-06-at-11.41.18-PM.png (563KB, 640x483px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 640x483px

>>34757938
god damn click bait

>>34757916
A fag can carry a ruck and kill just fine, let them be. Women on the otherhand suffer stress fractures, can't reach physical parody with a man, destroy unit cohesion, and do poorly in the unsanitary conditions of a combat role.

>>34757965
>A fag...

...is a disgusting degenerate that has no place among men in a combat team. Faggots introduce sexual relationships that have no business in a rifle platoon or company, and are a detriment to cohesion and morale.

Retards can hump rucksacks too, but they don't belong on the line either.

>>34757932
All oil isn't created equal. The reason there is still so much in Siberia is because the quality is shit and after the cost of refining it can't compete with top tier gulf oil. The rest of the stuff isn't worth all that much anyway in the grand scheme of things. Purely resource extraction based economies are only going to become less viable as time and technology progresses. It's why Russia is pushing STEM so hard in school, they are in the process of transitioning the economy away from oil.

>>34757897
go google siberia and look it up nigger
its one of the riches regions (if not the richest) in the world, fuck even the amount of nickel out there is ridiculous

russians are to dumb to utilize even fraction of siberian resources

File: 1493951599091.jpg (110KB, 588x602px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 588x602px

>>34758020
>go google siberia and look it up nigger
>russians are to dumb to utilize even fraction of siberian resources
>russians are to dumb

>>34758002
>All oil isn't created equal. The reason there is still so much in Siberia is because the quality is shit and after the cost of refining it can't compete with top tier gulf oil.

Because it's in the most remote region of the planet, even arctic oil is easier to gather.

But for a country that imports energy like China, taking over the worlds largest oil, coal, gas and metal reserves - so close to it's own boarder - would be a huge benefit.

>>34757892
no one likes what has happned to the Army and Marines both know thye need a total rebuild plus you ever tlak to htem they want the fight they prepare for it every day

>>34758020
It also is cold as fuck, you dumb triple nigger.

>>34758002
>Purely resource extraction based economies are only going to become less viable as time and technology progresses

China won't extract to export. They are extracting to survive and give employment to their people.

>>34758090
Are you having a stroke, m8?

>>34757997
t.pog

>>34758002
>because the quality is shit and after the cost of refining it can't compete with top tier gulf oil.
It's not particularly sour, it's just cold and remote.

>Purely resource extraction based economies are only going to become less viable as time and technology progresses.
An agrarian semi-paleonigger society becomes more viable as technology and other economies progress. Food is the staple unit of value and a paleonigger society's contributions aren't significant enough to impact prices, so their production value is relatively fixed, but the non-food goods produced by other societies become cheaper and more efficient with time.

>>34757873
>With the rampant faggotry and feminism that the democrats have infected our military with
Can you expand on that? What does that mean? Last I checked, the F-35s are coming online.

>>34757997
Found the fag who doesn't realize deployment means everyone's a bit gay.

>>34758138
t.faggot

>>34758207
Found the faggot that joined for the welfare and the opportunity to be surrounded by cock.

>>34758165
>What does that mean?

It means they've further lowered the standards to accommodate women, which means that the combat units will be just as physically pathetic and filled with fat pieces of shit as the support units are now, making our entire military that much worse. It means that the leadership will be even more incompetent because they will be focused on maintaining "equality" rather than lethality and combat effectiveness, and an entire generation of "leaders" will get promoted based on their political correctness rather than proficiency.

It means that bitches and faggotry will introduce sexual relationships into combat units that don't need that stupid fucking drama, making them less cohesive, effective, and motivated. This means they will be less motivated to fight, or put effort into anything when shit starts getting even remotely hard because "who fucking cares", right? It means now faggot leaders will start demanding sex from their subordinates for schools, promotions, and favorable duties, and it means that faggots will now make false sexual accusations against others the same way bitches already do.

It means that our military is now largely a piece of shit compared to what it was before that dumb nigger got elected POTUS, and we're ALL going to pay for it one day, one way or another.

>>34758138
>defending faggots in the military
>not a piece of shit support puke

Choose ONE.

File: Screen_Shot_20170314_at_12.15.38_AM.png (29KB, 79x119px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 79x119px

>>34758676
This is the dumbest thing I've read in, well, maybe ever.

>>34757670
War is inevitable.

Everyone will lose.

>>34757997
This is poor b8. This whole thread is piss poor, I'm disappointed in you, /k/

>>34758775
>>>/lgbt/

Fuck off to your special snowflake degenerate board.

>>34758676
>lethality and combat effectiveness
I mean, it's not like we've been effective in the last 20 years...
>It means that bitches and faggotry will introduce sexual relationships into combat units
How is that any different from the Joe that fucks another guys wife? Then there is drama between two straight dudes.
>It means now faggot leaders will start demanding sex from their subordinates for schools, promotions, and favorable duties
Not any different to how it is now in some cases. Those that get found out are usually chaptered out with an OTH or general discharge.
>It means that our military is now largely a piece of shit compared to what it was before that dumb nigger got elected POTUS, and we're ALL going to pay for it one day, one way or another.
What else did he do? I mean, other nation have gays and transgenders in their ranks and they do fine.
I can't see how letting in women into combat units is going to be the thing that breaks the US military in 8 years.

>>34758968
>Not any different to how it is now...
Not in the combat units as we didn't have bitches.

>other nation have gays and transgenders in their ranks and they do fine.
"Other nations" aren't the U.S., and most other nations militarizes are even WORSE than ours, exactly because they don't have standards and allow faggotry and bitches to pollute their ranks.

Niggers in Africa use child soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should, does it?

>I can't see
No shit you can't, so why don't you just shut the fuck up and let those of us that can make the decisions about what does and doesn't fuck up our combat teams.

It's pretty fucking pathetic when you're willing to put your ass on the line for your nation and yet they won't even support you when you ask to serve with normal dudes, and not faggots and bitches.

>>34759153
That sounds like a personal issue, bud.

>>34759208
It is a personal issue.....to every normal dude in the military.

>>34757965
>physical parody
>parody

File: vzbhayzhlk3z.jpg (42KB, 452x440px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 452x440px

>MFW I'm a autistic /pol/ack and absolutely have to derail threads

You know how sunk costs work. We spent 50 years running an entire fleet of B-52's into the ground with heavy use.

The Chinese haven't started building a bomber fleet in earnest yet. If they just start, we have to pump out b-21's to answer them. Its a production volume issue I am pessimistic about.

>>34757946
It's fucking RAND, you tinfoil tard.

>>34759153
>Not in the combat units as we didn't have bitches.
But we DO have drama in combat arms when two guys go for the same girl. Or maybe one bangs another guy's wife or girlfriend. Would that not throw a wrench into things? Honestly, shit like that is prevalent in civilian life too. I'd even go so far as to say it might be less, as the consequences of getting caught are significantly worse.
>exactly because they don't have standards and allow faggotry and bitches to pollute their ranks.
That's certainly NOT the case. Many other nations allow women and transgenders to serve openly and have significantly less issues, be it sexual assault, hazing or anything else. Hell, most European nations include alcohol in their rations and don't billet men and women separately. That alone would cause people like you to sperg out if we suggested that here in the US.

>Niggers in Africa use child soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should, does it?
No, as children top the scales at around 70 pounds until the hit puberty. Women can carry rifles, as can transgenders. Yes, not as well as guys.

>let those of us that can make the decisions about what does and doesn't fuck up our combat teams.
So does that mean you're a General or staff officer then, or maybe a career politician?
>yet they won't even support you when you ask to serve with normal dudes, and not faggots and bitches.
That sounds less like a military issue and more like a social issue T B H.
Also, please don't try to get around my question: Can you state ways the effectiveness of the US military has taken a nosedive that no other force in history has taken when women and transgendered were allowed to serve? Or do you just want to rant about Obama more?
>It is a personal issue.....to every normal dude in the military.
I think it's ok and I'm normal (knock on wood because 4chan)

File: Rand 5adIMvD1tr318g_1280.png (2MB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x853px

>>34759756
Identity theft is a serious issue.

>>34760010
>That's certainly NOT the case. Many other nations allow women and transgenders to serve openly and have significantly less issues, be it sexual assault, hazing or anything else. Hell, most European nations include alcohol in their rations and don't billet men and women separately. That alone would cause people like you to sperg out if we suggested that here in the US.

Not the guy you're replying to, but the military standards of "European nations" are nothing to aspire to. For the few countries that still require a draft, it's basically just a few weeks of glorified summer camp followed by a boring few months mopping the barracks.

If the conflicts in the middle east have taught us anything it's that (with the exception of some limited involvement by the UK) the rest of NATO is a fucking travelling circus.

>>34760204
>but the military standards of "European nations" are nothing to aspire to.
Considering they have much less social issues (marriages, sexual assault, drinking) to worry about, I would say it's something to aspire to.
>For the few countries that still require a draft, it's basically just a few weeks of glorified summer camp followed by a boring few months mopping the barracks.
Yeah, which is more than most Americans do. Also, it's interesting that most hardcore Republicans would advocate for a return to the draft to "teach those millennial a lesson", which is straight out of the European playbook. Not to mention it would be an introduction in to what can be called a quasi-socialist system (the military).

>with the exception of some limited involvement by the UK) the rest of NATO is a fucking travelling circus.
What about the French, their mountain forces routinely fucked shit up. The Baltic nations sent their best (which interestingly enough included those who had served in AFG with the Soviets in the 80s). The Canadians sent light infantry.

>>34757916
Ahh yes because gays and women are the cause of all of our combat woes.

>>34757997
You know straight dudes in the army have been fucking each other since armies were invented right?

File: 1361061239534.jpg (9KB, 247x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 247x200px

>>34757965
>physical parody

File: ray-person-300.jpg (22KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x168px

>>34759153
>t. Ray Person

How's the ripped fuel treating you?

>>34760704
You know "straight" dudes fucking other "straight" dudes are faggots, right?

>>34759399
Yup he is truly /pol/. You could argue that due to a significant portion of the population being weirded out by that shit that gays are bad for cohesion but that would be to social norms and a fractured society. Alexander the gay had no problems in his army. I personally would sight logistics as the reason. Kinda like they used to not allow diabetics into the military. Which in a real war we would not. But hey I am only 40 and have only been in 4 declared war zones in my life. While fags are not better than anyone else in general they are definitely better than this faggot.

>>34760549

>Be ex FFL
>Now crippled commando lurking around
>See burger talking shit
>Said burger won't even last 1 week in the FFL
>Kek softly and while dropping som gunex on Famas

>>34760883
>pussy infrastructure

Wasn't Kissinger directly responsible for the rise of commie China? It was him that led to america being weakened on trade. At the same time led to the destruction of american factories as it made employment of cheaper labor outside (i.e. in this case China) has completely annhilated the need for american skilled labor and in effect destroyed the american dream if not for this asshole.

europe/us is on the decline.

>>34761889
>>160742667
Read Kissinger's On China before trying to claim anything.

>>34758676
I haven't seen so much effort put into something so poorly articulated and thought out since the starwars prequels.

File: Vespasian.jpg (334KB, 795x1024px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 795x1024px

>>34757670
I predict we'll go back to the bipolar order like we had against the USSR, Cold War 2 essentially. At least until India gets its act together and balances China properly.

>>34758552
Put your trip back on Phil
Straight dudes have been sucking each other off in the military since pre-history, it's just what happens when you put a bunch of horny young guys far from home with no women for a long time.

>>34757873
>never served
>bashes those who do

Enlist now, faggot.

File: wide eyed asian man.jpg (70KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 470x470px

>That salty Chinaman in the comments

What's his problem?

>>34757873

You wanna know how I know you've never served?

Go back to /b/. Enjoy summer while you can.

>>34764437
>>34764489
Deny, deny and deny, that's all you can do now, faggots. But it doesn't really take a military genius to see those problems.