Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Chinese F-22 equivalents. Air Force says "I TOLD U SO"

124

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Hoz wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ...so how does this point to getting better at "eating soup with a knife" or making our conventional weapons systems even more overpowering rather than point toward not getting involved in wars with our enemy's proxies?

    I'm glad you're optimistic about our chances of avoiding any future war, but I'm not. I'd love to think we'll only get in to only the very necessary wars in the future, but even if we only go into the necessary ones, we'll still need a capable or adaptable military. And "eating soup with a knife" is a reference to counter-insurgency which doesn't cover all facets of even asymmetric warfare.

    What part of a capable or adaptable military obligates F-22's and/or a majority of discretionary revenues? And it isn't a question of optimism it's a question of what lessons have we learned from the past half century plus. Delta seems to be suggesting that it's to continue our military-industrial complex. To me that seems like the exact opposite of what the lessons of history are trying to teach us.

    tea-1.jpg
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    oh please, who doesn't have a plan for zombies?

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    oh please, who doesn't have a plan for zombies?

    Lycanthropes?

    tea-1.jpg
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ...so how does this point to getting better at "eating soup with a knife" or making our conventional weapons systems even more overpowering rather than point toward not getting involved in wars with our enemy's proxies?

    I'm glad you're optimistic about our chances of avoiding any future war, but I'm not. I'd love to think we'll only get in to only the very necessary wars in the future, but even if we only go into the necessary ones, we'll still need a capable or adaptable military. And "eating soup with a knife" is a reference to counter-insurgency which doesn't cover all facets of even asymmetric warfare.

    What part of a capable or adaptable military obligates F-22's and/or a majority of discretionary revenues? And it isn't a question of optimism it's a question of what lessons have we learned from the past half century plus. Delta seems to be suggesting that it's to continue our military-industrial complex. To me that seems like the exact opposite of what the lessons of history are trying to teach us.

    I cannot entirely disagree with your statement. We seem to be prepping for the cold war. Conventional Warfare is not done, it never will be. But Low-Intensity is going to be the majority of what we see from now on. Best to prep for that.

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    What part of a capable or adaptable military obligates F-22's and/or a majority of discretionary revenues? And it isn't a question of optimism it's a question of what lessons have we learned from the past half century plus. Delta seems to be suggesting that it's to continue our military-industrial complex. To me that seems like the exact opposite of what the lessons of history are trying to teach us.
    I'm not going to defend the F-22 project.

    My response has been to the tact of argument people are using in this thread, that conventional warfare is over so improving our conventional warfare capability is unnecessary, and people here seem to view this in absolute terms. As soon as it becomes obvious that our conventional military isn't capable of winning a conventional war, nations will be a lot more willing to get into a conventional war with us.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    Are we talking science-based, kill-it-with-fire zombies? Or magical, find-the-necromonicon zombies?

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Nought wrote: »
    The Soviet space shuttle and Concord were copies. The Chinese fighter is more like a remix.

    This is actually not entirely true--in effect, there are only so many ways you can design a reusable "space plane" or a supersonic passenger aircraft.

    The Buran was definitely inspired by the American space shuttle. The Tupolev Tu-144 was actually cosmetically similar, but very, very different (and made an operational flight a short time beforehand) mechanically.

    They are not 'copies' in the same way the Tu-4 was a very obvious copy of the B-29 accomplished literally through reverse engineering.

    To use your own words, they might be better called 'remixes'. The B-1 Bomber looks an awful lot like Tu-22M that came a few years earlier (and was based on an even earlier Tupolev aircraft), but it's not a copy--it was just intended to do the same thing.

    Though in this specific case, this might be a copy of the F-22, despite the physical dissimilarities.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Hoz wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What part of a capable or adaptable military obligates F-22's and/or a majority of discretionary revenues? And it isn't a question of optimism it's a question of what lessons have we learned from the past half century plus. Delta seems to be suggesting that it's to continue our military-industrial complex. To me that seems like the exact opposite of what the lessons of history are trying to teach us.
    I'm not going to defend the F-22 project.

    My response has been to the tact of argument people are using in this thread, that conventional warfare is over so improving our conventional warfare capability is unnecessary, and people here seem to view this in absolute terms. As soon as it becomes obvious that our conventional military isn't capable of winning a conventional war, nations will be a lot more willing to get into a conventional war with us.

    Except that the entire NATO alliance is never going to deteriorate to that extent. What's more, even if it did we are still protected by two oceans. I'm not arguing for Fortress America, but to suggest that we need to be so drastically concerned with our conventional military and force readiness in order to keep us safe (from China) as our internal infrastructure is bleeding our economy dry and literally killing us by the thousands every year seems...let's go with shortsighted.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?
    Well, we're not that close that we can just completely phase them out.

    But yeah, we're heading for unmanned with full force. Gates himself has even said that there probably won't be a 6th generation manned fighter.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    oh please, who doesn't have a plan for zombies?

    Lycanthropes?

    Oddly enough, the corporations that spawn the virus that causes them. History has shown that even when they are making a zombie virus, they just don't think of killing zombies.

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy hack into your systems and control all your drones. Then you're screwed.

    Much harder to do that when you strap humans into combat aircraft.

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    people have some very deep prejudices about un-manned aircrafts. But there are drones with anti air capability in service now, they're role however is quite a bit lower priority then manned aircrafts.

    Plus people aren't as terrified of a drone as an F-22. They just look like wimps while F-22 looks rather evil.

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy hack into your systems and control all your drones. Then you're screwed.

    Much harder to do that when you strap humans into combat aircraft.
    Really?

    My understanding that with encrypted transmissions, no, they can't.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy hack into your systems and control all your drones. Then you're screwed.

    Much harder to do that when you strap humans into combat aircraft.

    Yes, the leet haxors will take down US military drone. Sure.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    people have some very deep prejudices about un-manned aircrafts. But there are drones with anti air capability in service now, they're role however is quite a bit lower priority then manned aircrafts.

    Plus people aren't as terrified of a drone as an F-22. They just look like wimps while F-22 looks rather evil.

    ...shouldn't they just look like contrails and burning things right behind you?

    tea-1.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy intercept the message and decode your signals. Then you're screwed.

    Much harder to do that when you use messenger pigeons.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Also modern aircraft are computerized anyway so unless that pilot is also a hacker if his plane's GPS gets a virus there's not much he can do about it.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    Are we talking science-based, kill-it-with-fire zombies? Or magical, find-the-necromonicon zombies?

    Romero style zombies. If its find the necronomicon style zombies then the only thing to do is find the book.

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    people have some very deep prejudices about un-manned aircrafts. But there are drones with anti air capability in service now, they're role however is quite a bit lower priority then manned aircrafts.

    Plus people aren't as terrified of a drone as an F-22. They just look like wimps while F-22 looks rather evil.

    ...shouldn't they just look like contrails and burning things right behind you?
    At the ranges of engagement we're looking at, I'd imagine the drones would be far scarier in that they would be even harder to see with the naked eye.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Are we talking science-based, kill-it-with-fire zombies? Or magical, find-the-necromonicon zombies?

    Romero style zombies. If its find the necronomicon style zombies then the only thing to do is find the book.

    We need a tenfold increase in the budgets of the Library of Congress and the National Archives.

    My being a recently graduated librarian without a job has no bearing on this statement whatsoever.

    tea-1.jpg
  • South hostSouth host I obey without question Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy hack into your systems and control all your drones. Then you're screwed.

    Much harder to do that when you strap humans into combat aircraft.

    Yes, the leet haxors will take down US military drone. Sure.
    They didn't take it over, but people have hacked into UAV feeds before. And for cheap.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    There's a danger there though. You could have the enemy hack into your systems and control all your drones. Then you're screwed.

    Much harder to do that when you strap humans into combat aircraft.

    Yes, the leet haxors will take down US military drone. Sure.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/04/world/fg-uschina4

    http://rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-technology/how-chinese-military-hackers-took-over-a-nuclear-armed-b52/1320/

    5 sec google search

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    We can't be that far from air defense drones that turn into anti-aircraft missiles when a button is pushed, can we?

    Why are we still strapping humans into combat aircraft?

    people have some very deep prejudices about un-manned aircrafts. But there are drones with anti air capability in service now, they're role however is quite a bit lower priority then manned aircrafts.

    Plus people aren't as terrified of a drone as an F-22. They just look like wimps while F-22 looks rather evil.

    ...shouldn't they just look like contrails and burning things right behind you?
    At the ranges of engagement we're looking at, I'd imagine the drones would be far scarier in that they would be even harder to see with the naked eye.

    Well if you're being escorted out of someone's airspace you should be able to see the other plane quite well. And even the silhouette of the F-22 is quite easy to spot and is pretty damn creepy.

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I'm still curious what "victory" looks like in our war with China. Because all I can imagine makes me think we should pump all that F-22 money into a better diplomatic corps in Beijing.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Haven't you ever heard of the boy scouts' motto: "Always be prepared."

    "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

    "We must remember that vigilance is the price of safety."

    How is a war with China even gonna work?

    Do you really see some kind of 400 million man amphibious landing off the coast of LA or something?

    Perhaps a new Golden Horde chugging it's way towards Europe?

    Yeah...not happening brosef.

    Well, there's Taiwan. And I dunno, maybe something in the future is gonna... happen. Look, I don't have a magic fucking crystal ball. And I doubt you do either.

    The military's job is to prepare for every eventuality. Not just the ones we're totally certain of.

    There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia, and you're pretty much advocating the latter. I understand where you're coming from but it's far-fetched in the foreseeable future and there are better ways to prepare than the enormously expensive F-22 project. Not that it'd matter, as I expect the economic fallout would screw most of us little people over before the fighting itself ever got close.

    Also, every eventuality? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion too? Not to compare the unlikelihood of that to a war with China, but there's a point where you head into the realm of ridiculousness.


    Actually the United States armed forces have a plan for China. And Canada. They probably have a plan for Rhode Island

    When Max Brooks researched for World War Z, he found out that most military strategists have at least considered dealing with Zombies.

    Seriously. They love planning for everything.

    Are we talking science-based, kill-it-with-fire zombies? Or magical, find-the-necromonicon zombies?

    Romero style zombies. If its find the necronomicon style zombies then the only thing to do is find the book.

    They're still more likely (okay...I take it back, equally likely) as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan happening in the immediate future. The cut throat nature of some levels of the Taipei government is, in part, to blame for this--politicians lie! More at eleven!--and perhaps it is more likely than 400 million Chinese troops landing in LA or San Diego. The lead guy warning of a Chinese takeover wasn't just president, he was sentenced to life in prison after the most recent election for corruption charges (since downgraded to 20 years, I think). The point is, this guy is not any more trustworthy than the current guys, who refer to the Chinese as distant brothers and think the island's destiny lies in closer ties.

    But it's still pretty unlikely. Especially since, in 50 years or so, Taiwan will probably bow to Chinese sovereignty anyway--after having been made economically indispensable to the mainland, which is true for a lot of the Taiwanese economy right now. And then there's the whole issue of cultural ties (I wonder if they're going to ask for all that nice swag in the National Palace Museum back...).

    That being said, the US should have a plan for that contingency. China invading Taiwan. China invading LA. Zombies invading LA via shipping vessels from Taiwan flagged under Rhode Island. For half the world's military expenditures, they should be.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Threatening to default on all the money we owe China is a better deterant against invasion of Taiwan (or whatever) than all the F-22s we have or possibly could have.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    we don't owe them that much money.

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    We owe them enough and have enough common economic interests that starting shit over Taiwan is not worth it to them.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Threatening to default on all the money we owe China is a better deterant against invasion of Taiwan (or whatever) than all the F-22s we have or possibly could have.

    Probably. Besides, if China wanted to take over Taiwan, they'd just threaten to sharply raise taxes on Taiwanese businesses operating in the mainland or something similarly disadvantageous to both sides. The corporate world would hand over the country without a shot being fired.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Ginja NinjaGinja Ninja Registered User
    edited January 2011
    Interesting conversation to this very long time lurker.

    Preparing for, adjusting our military, or thinking about how to cope with China does not strike me as absurd. China is a large, powerful country that will continue to grow in strength. It is doing so in a world order that, it appears to me, to be destined for greater uncertainty over the next decades. China has been engaging in a much more muscular foreign policy and we've seen the discomfort of its neighbors result in a resurgence of US diplomacy in Asia.

    Is that really surprising? After all, we don't prepare for war with India, which could also be described in a similar manner.

    I think part of the reason it's not so unthinkable with China is the high degree of uncertainty in the changing political system. China is, in many ways, a black box to the West. It's authoritarian. It has a potentially fragile political system and it is experiencing a surge of nationalism (a bit rich, I know, coming from an American). From what I have read, much of it's force structure is being aimed at denial of access to American military forces. I think much of what China does appears to be directed at that nationalist, internal audience, which makes me a bit queasy about the internal math of any military/political action. Mistakes happen and things can escalate despite the best interest of a rational political actor.

    Does that mean we have to build a ginormous military, full of F-22s? I would think not. But it might mean that we should think about ways of gaining naval or air superiority, or at least credible threats to gain those things.

    Also, I don't think China would go to war with Taiwan for any particular material reason. If they do it, I'd venture it'd be for political reasons and any hit to economic gain from Taiwan would be secondary.

    Anyway, just one random, not that knowledgeable dude on the internet's thoughts.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.

    Our credit is probably good enough that we'd still be considered trustworthy by all our creditors who aren't going to fuck with us. Really, how many banks are going to invade anything? Besides Goldman Sachs.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.

    Our credit is probably good enough that we'd still be considered trustworthy by all our creditors who aren't going to fuck with us. Really, how many banks are going to invade anything? Besides Goldman Sachs.

    Actually, that's one of the reasons a default isn't a toy to be played with, I think. The minute it becomes a realistic option on the part of the US for an ulterior goal, the whole idea fucks up, right? "Oh, sure, I'll lend you the trillions of dollars you need...no, I'm sure you won't fuck me over if things go poorly in the next few decades, that was just a one time thing, right."

    "....right?"

    Because who's the say what counts as "not fucking with us?". I'm not an economist, but really, I think it's the sort of commitment both sides are in, whether they like to or not. And our credit rating going to shit as a country probably wouldn't help businesses.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Synthesis wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.

    Our credit is probably good enough that we'd still be considered trustworthy by all our creditors who aren't going to fuck with us. Really, how many banks are going to invade anything? Besides Goldman Sachs.

    Actually, that's one of the reasons a default isn't a toy to be played with, I think. The minute it becomes a realistic option on the part of the US for an ulterior goal, the whole idea fucks up, right? "Oh, sure, I'll lend you the trillions of dollars you need...no, I'm sure you won't fuck me over if things go poorly in the next few decades, that was just a one time thing, right."

    "....right?"

    Because who's the say what counts as "not fucking with us?". I'm not an economist, but really, I think it's the sort of commitment both sides are in, whether they like to or not. And our credit rating going to shit as a country probably wouldn't help businesses.

    Declare war, but don't really do anything militarily. That should be justification enough to default without freaking out everyone else.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.

    Our credit is probably good enough that we'd still be considered trustworthy by all our creditors who aren't going to fuck with us. Really, how many banks are going to invade anything? Besides Goldman Sachs.

    Actually, that's one of the reasons a default isn't a toy to be played with, I think. The minute it becomes a realistic option on the part of the US for an ulterior goal, the whole idea fucks up, right? "Oh, sure, I'll lend you the trillions of dollars you need...no, I'm sure you won't fuck me over if things go poorly in the next few decades, that was just a one time thing, right."

    "....right?"

    Because who's the say what counts as "not fucking with us?". I'm not an economist, but really, I think it's the sort of commitment both sides are in, whether they like to or not. And our credit rating going to shit as a country probably wouldn't help businesses.

    Declare war, but don't really do anything militarily. That should be justification enough to default without freaking out everyone else.

    ..Yes, because a formal state of war between China and the USA would make international relationships much calmer.

    Look, guys, this may sound talk hippie talk, but war is bad. War with China would have immeasurably worse consequences than any possible benefit we would get out of it, for a whole host of reasons. It isn't going to happen, and it isn't something you play silly buggers with. It simply isn't in our interest, and a whole lot would have to change before it approached being a not completely devastating idea.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    we don't owe them that much money.

    The effects of a US default on any of its debt would be impossible to foretell, but to say it would be bad is as much an understatement as to suggest that the last/current Recession is a touch inconvenient.

    Our credit is probably good enough that we'd still be considered trustworthy by all our creditors who aren't going to fuck with us. Really, how many banks are going to invade anything? Besides Goldman Sachs.

    Actually, that's one of the reasons a default isn't a toy to be played with, I think. The minute it becomes a realistic option on the part of the US for an ulterior goal, the whole idea fucks up, right? "Oh, sure, I'll lend you the trillions of dollars you need...no, I'm sure you won't fuck me over if things go poorly in the next few decades, that was just a one time thing, right."

    "....right?"

    Because who's the say what counts as "not fucking with us?". I'm not an economist, but really, I think it's the sort of commitment both sides are in, whether they like to or not. And our credit rating going to shit as a country probably wouldn't help businesses.

    Declare war, but don't really do anything militarily. That should be justification enough to default without freaking out everyone else.
    China sure as hell would do something militarily. You don't declare war unless you want explosions and death.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I would think not. But it might mean that we should think about ways of gaining naval or air superiority, or at least credible threats to gain those things.

    Are you...are you under the impression that United States does not have naval or air superiority over the PRC?

    Or army superiority?

    Or nuclear weapons superiority?

    Let's be straight with this. Last time a more powerful military then the U.S. Armed Forces existed on this planet was the Red Army around 1946 or so on. That's it. From that on, United States has been the greatest military power on Earth, and the greatest one that has ever existed.

    The Chinese Navy has one half-rotting aircraft carrier haggled out of the stinking remains of the Soviet Union. United States has thirteen carriers, with plans to make ten brand new ones to replace them. The Chinese Air Force is less then half of the U.S. Air Force, and yet much less in quality and level of technology. The Army may be larger, but that's the only think it beats U.S. army in. It has 130 times less nukes then United States. It spends thirty times less money on it's military then the United States does.

    Even if China was stupid enough to enter an arms race with United States - which they aren't, because China is very smart - it would take it a better part of this century to even begin to catch up with it. China is not interested in total war. China is not interested in gaining control of Taiwan with military when they can simply reel them slowly in with the economy. China is not interested in invading it's neighbors when it can dominate them with money. And it certainly isn't interested in total war with the greatest military in existence when it can own the economy of the country that hosts it.

    See, the current situation is practically a dream come true for any budding superpower. For the last fifty years U.S. military has been building up for a fight with an equivalent military force. Soviet Union fell. Now instead of gearing down, they are building on the Cold War legacy military they have, even when they don't have the big red threat to fight against. You don't think China learned from the Soviet Union? Why engage U.S. in an arms race when U.S. is engaging itself on it? It's managing to do the same to United States that Reagan did to the Soviet Union without spending a single yuan themselves on anything else but their actual needs. And hey, that's 900 billion that United States won't be spending on economic competition with China.

    See, China is winning, but not in a way all the doomsday sayers are predicting. There won't be a 400 million Chinese invasion landing in the shores of California any time soon. Why would the Chinese bomb their own buildings and banks, after all?

    I seriously think that there have been very few times in the history of the world that a country has played into the pockets of it's supposed "enemies" as well as United States does. China is not the only one, really. I mean, United States spend the better part of the 2000's winning the Iraq War for Iran.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I am reminded about the plans Nato had for fighting the Warzaw Pact. It always started with convetional warfare first, with the Warzaw pact invading the Fulda Gap in west Germany using thousands of tanks. Only later would it escalate into using tactical warheads, followed by strategic warheads. All of this to justify a massive conventional war machine, wherein a technologicaly superior western force held its own against a massive soviet horde using conventional weapons.

    Then the cold war ended and we got a look at the Warzaw Pacts actual plans. They where planing to use tactical nukes in their opening bombardment, followed by massive nervegas attacks, followed by conventional forces moping up the remains.


    Edit: Which one of these plans would have worked do you think?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
Sign In or Register to comment.