Image is of the aftermath of an Israeli bombing of Beirut in 2006.


We are now almost one year into the war and genocide in Gaza. Despite profound hardship, the Gazan Resistance continues its battles against the enemy, entirely undeterred. Despite Israeli proclamations throughout 2024 that they have cleared out Hamas from various places throughout Gaza, we still see regular attacks and ambushes against Zionist forces. Just today (Monday), Al Qassam fighters ambushed and destroyed another convoy of Israeli vehicles. The predictions early on in the war were that Israel would defeat Hamas in mere months, needing only until December, then January, and so on. This has proven very much untrue. Israel is stuck in the mud; unable to destroy their enemy due to their lack of knowledge about the "Gaza Metro" and, of course, a lack of actual fighting skill, given how many times I've seen Zionists getting shot while they gaze wistfully out of windows.

The same quagmire will occur in Lebanon, only considerably worse. Both Nasrallah and Sinwar possess a similar strategy of luring Zionist forces onto known, friendly territory, replete with traps and ambushes, to bleed them dry of equipment, manpower, and the will to continue fighting. The scale of the invasion could fall anywhere on the spectrum from "very limited" - more of a series of raids on Hezbollah positions than truly trying to occupy land - to a total invasion which would seek to permanently take control of Southern Lebanon. Neither is likely to destroy, or even substantially diminish Hezbollah's fighting abilities. This is not wishful thinking: Hezbollah has convincingly defeated Israel twice before in its history, pushing them from their territory, and both times Hezbollah had almost no missiles and a limited supply of other equipment, relying on improvisation as often as not. The Hezbollah of 2024 is an entirely different organization to that of the early 2000s.

Attempts to drive wedges between Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon are also unlikely to succeed. Hezbollah is not just a military force, it is extremely interlinked into various communities throughout Lebanon, drawing upon those communities to recruit soldiers. Throughout its history, it has provided education, healthcare, reconstruction, and dozens of other services one would attribute to a state. Amal Saad's recent suggestion of using "quasi-state actor" as a more respectful replacement for the typical "non-state actor" seems advisable. And the decentralized command structures, compartmented leadership, strong succession planning, and aforementioned community ties almost entirely neutralizes the effectiveness of assassinations. Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem has confirmed that Hezbollah's path has been set by Nasrallah, and his martyrdom will not stop nor even pause their efforts. Additionally, he confirmed that despite the recent attacks by Israel which nominally focussed on destroying missile depots, Hezbollah's supply of weapons has not been degraded, and they are still only using the minimum of their capabilities.


Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

If you have evidence of Israeli crimes and atrocities that you wish to preserve, there is a thread here in which to do so.

Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:

UNRWA reports on Israel's destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.

English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.

English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Sources:

Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.

Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.

Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:

Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.

https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.

Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:

Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.


  • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]
    ·
    3 months ago

    I do wonder how feasible all this is with US manufacturing being what it is and the continued lack of recruits. Even a situation where they gain more out of economic necessity doesn’t make up for the lagging infrastructure and waste of money on the private sector.

    • xiaohongshu [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The US has no industrial capacity to compete with China, that’s why if they needed a war, it has to be soon (seems like they’ve decided it’s going to be 2027).

      However, it’s not about military engagements, it’s about the control of global supply chain.

      US submarines can disrupt shipping lanes vital for Chinese exports. Blowing up a few container ships and the global trade gets stunted to a halt. This will significantly damage both the US and China’s economies. The US has food and fuel, China needs to import food and fuel (and a lot of them came from America too), so the question is: who can survive longer?

      Meanwhile, the global supply chain gets reshaped. China desperately needs to get the inland Belt and Road trade routes going to divert its exports away from the sea shipping lanes under threat by the US navy. This is also why you’re seeing the Fed reducing rates, because it has pretty much exhausted the harvest of international capital into US shores over the past two years, and now it’s time to reverse the valve to unleash the dollars back into the Global South including the Belt and Road. The war in the Middle East is yet another vector to stop the Chinese expansion of Belt and Road.

      In fact, we’re even seeing that the Chinese libs are already succumbing to saving the stock market and the property market by (re-)inviting foreign capital into China’s financial sector, undoing the advantage handed to them when the Biden admin increased the interest rates in 2022.

      It’s very clear that the US long terms strategic plan is to buy up the entire Belt and Road that China had built. However, the Chinese libs (trained in the West with neoclassical economics theory) believe that the US cannot possibly print unlimited deficits, so the US economy would ultimately crumble under the trillions and trillions of dollars of reckless spending. This view is actually very mainstream and even criticized by many neoliberal economists in the US itself, but it came from a faulty understanding of how the financial system functions based on how the gold standard used to work, so this would be a disastrous strategy to rely on the US tripping over itself over huge deficits.

      China’s only means of defending against this is a currency war, to clear the world of US dollar dependence (which we all know as dedollarization), but it seems as though nobody (except maybe Russia) has realized just how urgent and important this key task is to survive the onslaught by US imperialism in the coming decade.

      • geikei [none/use name]
        ·
        3 months ago

        submarines can disrupt shipping lanes vital for Chinese exports. Blowing up a few container ships and the global trade gets stunted to a halt. This will significantly damage both the US and China’s economies. The US has food and fuel, China needs to import food and fuel (and a lot of them came from America too), so the question is: who can survive longer?

        Sorry but this a reddit tier analysis.

        To begin with such an attempt by the US would come after some PRC blockade or kinetic action on Taiwan and as a result even if we assume what you say is credible as an anti-China strategy the answer to the question of "who can survive longer?" is by and far "not Taiwan". If the US doesnt attempt to actively break a Chinese blockade in a scale that matters or engage invading Chinese forces, so actualy engage in war in that theater, then Taiwan will capitulate in weeks and then its over. US cant get it back and them continuing to destroy the most important shipping lanes in the world after China already takes Taiwan is silly. For the effects of a blockade to even be felt by China, Taiwan would have to hold for over a year due to the size of China's stockpiles, which in and of itself is a highly questionable assumption given that unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is extremely reliant on trade for basically everything from food to fuel. If Taiwan falls in a few months which is a good case scenario for them, the blockade will likely not force China to relinquish control. If Taiwan doesn't fall in a few months, it won't be because of the blockade. A blockade cant be done with some subs striking rando ships. Its a completely lopsided resource drain for little to no immediate battlefield benefit which is what Taiwan needs. If Taiwan is successfully cut off from world trade, they have virtually no chance of lasting for very long and given deteriorating domestic conditions, they could probably be convinced to capitulate.

        Lets talk self sufficency tho because you overstate chinese food and fuel dependance.

        China produces 4.3m bpd, imports 11.4m bpd crude but exports 1.1m bpd refined. They can get abt 2-3m bpd from Russia. 400k bpd from Myanmar & Kazakhstan thru pipeline. Getting 6.5m bpd during an emergency is easily do-able.

        Stopping half the flights, shipping & gas cars can cut abt 5-6m bpd of usage and in general gasoline/diesel usage can be reduced to minimal levels in such situation since NEVs are everywhere and they will be even more so everywhere with each coming year. Petrochem usage can be reduced through higher utilization in coal-to-chem plants + more imports over land. Food, Crude & refined products can be transported in over land through trains & trucks. North Sea Routes add additional shipping capacity - US would bring Russia into conflict if Russian tankers are targeted in their own water. China also has the option to increase the capacity from Russia but chose to not do it currently. If China bellived this was a problem they would have approved power of the Siberia 2 and other pipelines.

        There is basically no way you can actually choke off Chinese economy through sea blockades of energy imports once its this far along in electrification of is transportation sector. And that's assuming you can choke off its energy routes to Middle East, which is dubious since any such effort would actually destroy Japan & SK + most of southeast Asia, who do not have the option of turning to EVs or coal chemical plants or importing via pipeline/shipping from Russia & Central Asia. Any real blockade would blockade ASEAN countries as well as Eastern Asian ones from the necessary energy imputs to have their economies functioning. You will be facing off against a southeast Asia who would also be eager to break off any blockade and work with china to get around it in any way possible in order to not collapse economicaly before even China feels the heat. You basicaly surrender the entire region to China and even make sure Japan and SK cant and dont join you in any action

        There is also the feasibility of such blockade in the first place. Striking a couple of ingoing and outgoing comersial ships to China wont do shit to make the roots stop, which in the first place would collapse the economies of every signle country in the erea before china even feels it. To actually be effective you would have to manage an actual blockade of Malacca and likely more than just that since there are alternative, albeit slightly longer, routes due to the fact Indonesia is an archipelago. There exists the Sunda Strait just to the south next to Java and the Lombok Strait further east. If the Strait of Malacca is blockaded, it would be trivial for ships to divert towards the Sunda Strait or the Lombok Strait and completely circumvent the American blockade so for an effective blockade, the USN would have to blockade all three straits. That's a lot of resources the USN needs to divert away from the actual battle happening in the Pacific towards a blockade that won't have much of an immediate impact on the actual battle happening.

        The USN will have to question if implementing three blockades in Southeast Asia is an effective use of their very limited resources against an opponent which will have a massive local superiority in forces.. The US needs as many assets in the fight to even stand a chance as is, there is little point crippling the world economy even more and putting South Korea and Japan on ticking time bombs by blockading three straits in and around Indonesia.

        You also cant trivialize the amount of resources required to screen tens of thousands of ships carrying trillions worth of trade. Not as in "please report your manifest so we can carry out mutually beneficial peacetime commerce" but "physically verify every ship is carrying what it says and going where it says because they have a huge profit motive to lie." And that's not even counting all the ships who actually do dock in SEA, but whose cargos go to China by rail. The ships have no control over what happens to their cargos after they offload. The other option is what . Striking ships that may or may not be going to any random port or country in the erea. A logistical impossibility. Never mind that the US cant actualy track most container ships either in port or out in the sea if they dont want to be tracked. Let alone know which are china bound. Ship-tracking satellites do not exist. This is a fantasy. Its difficult it is to keep track of even just a ship in the vast open ocean, let alone thousands of them.

        The US also just cant sink the ships when they are close to dock in China or leave china. The USN will be lucky to even have a few ships survive within stand-off ranges from the Chinese coastline. South China Se is pretty much a complete no-go for the USN considering the shallow waters reduces the effectiveness of submarine stealth, and the thousands of air and see sensors China has littered the erea with. The entire sea is well within range of China's absolutely gargantuan stockpile of AShMs and is close enough to Chinese air bases that the PLARF will have a massive numerical superiority to any potential USAF/USN aerial assets in the region. I highly doubt the USN will have any SSNs to spare for patrols of the straits around Indonesia to begin with when they will be desperately needed in the Pacific. The USN is already dealing with a serious hull shortage even during peacetime. I don't understand how people can expect the USN to have multiple SSNs available for something like a blockade when they'll need every little bit of help they can get in the Pacific. A very limited number of American SSNs who will already be tasked with the monumental job of surviving China's massive and extensive ASW network of ships, helicopters, submarines, aircraft and land-based sensors whilst at the same time finding, targeting and engaging Chinese warships will now also be tasked with implementing a blockade and attacking any and all vessels in the region, exhausting their already limited torpedo and Tomahawk supplies. This does not seem like a very useful way to utilise the only USN assets that have a higher degree of survivability within 1,000 km of Chinese shores given that these assets will likely have an actual amphibious invasion that they will need to stop.

        Cause again sea trade in the erea wont stop just because the US randomly strikes 2,5 or even 20 containers they can fet their sights on out of the 1000 per day heading from and to China, never mind that it would be a completely self defeating endeavor in the first place.

        • xiaohongshu [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Everything you said involves restructuring of the supply chain, which is exactly what I have been saying is the critical point of this war. The US doesn’t need to sink all the ships - that’s the whole point of the strategy. It only needs to sink a few to shock the world and trigger a supply chain rerouting, and good luck scouring the vast area of the ocean to find the subs. No country on earth has the resources and technology to even come close to doing that. That’s the scariest aspect of submarine warfare.

          The supply chain isn’t something you turn off one valve and open another, you know? It’s not adding and subtracting numbers, it’s about completely restructuring the industries and logistics which take a lot of resources and efforts. For example, which so much of China’s industries geared towards exports, how do you reorientate them in such a short time? It takes decades to shift them towards a domestic consumption oriented model, which is what I have been saying China should do (and they should have started doing that since the 2008 recession).

          These are exactly the hard lessons the Europeans learned when they sanctioned Russia during the early days of Ukraine war in 2022. They thought they could just turn off Russian oil and gas and raw materials and get them replaced somewhere else (two academic reports that the German government adopted said it would only affect 2% of their GDP lol) - the end result is the de-industrialization of Europe because people don’t think about the highly unpredictable non-linear secondary effects that can happen when these sanctions perturbed the global supply chain.

          • geikei [none/use name]
            ·
            3 months ago

            You ignored 95% of my comment. I would like you to re-read it instead of repackaging your other, usualy credible, arguments about the need for Chinese economic and trade reoriantation to try and support an immaginary scenario. China may be in danger for all shorts of things, but not from what you are saying. I listed like 8 seperate angles on why the US trying to strangle and significantly disrupt Chinese sea trade roots following a Chinese action against Taiwan is logisticaly nearly impossible, extremely porous, self defeating and apocalyptic to pretty much everyone before it is for China and its plausible stretegic advantages cant come remoetly quickly enough to matter in timescale of a conflict in SCS. And that was on the asumption that the US would attempt an actual cut off and blockade of a sea route. If your hypothetical also has that the US will be achieving that chocking and rerouting of global maritime trade while actively engaged militarily with China in the pacific theater and SCS with like 2 available US subs scouring an erea larger than Europe and doing indiscriminate terrorism (because monitoring and intelligence isnt actualy there) to 1 or 2 out of 500 passing containers per day then this adds more layers of implausibility that drops it bellow r/worldnews tier.

            It cant happen, it wont happen and no one on the military or civilian command of either country considers it seriously

        • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
          ·
          3 months ago

          If the US doesnt attempt to actively break a Chinese blockade in a scale that matters or engage invading Chinese forces, so actualy engage in war in that theater, then Taiwan will capitulate in weeks and then its over. US cant get it back and them continuing to destroy the most important shipping lanes in the world after China already takes Taiwan is silly. For the effects of a blockade to even be felt by China, Taiwan would have to hold for over a year due to the size of China's stockpiles, which in and of itself is a highly questionable assumption given that unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is extremely reliant on trade for basically everything from food to fuel. If Taiwan falls in a few months which is a good case scenario for them, the blockade will likely not force China to relinquish control. If Taiwan doesn't fall in a few months, it won't be because of the blockade.

          This isn't relevant to what you've written, but Taiwan will not capitulate within weeks. It will capitulate within days if not hours. They lack the societal unity and political will to endure a blockade on top of their military top brass being bribed and infiltrated by the PRC to surrender. Taiwan is currently in the middle of a political scandal where the leader of a third party, which is agnostic on status quo vs separatism, is getting hit with corruption charges. This third party is significant because the target demographic are zoomers, basically people who are of conscription age and who will be of conscription age. It doesn't bode well for fighting morale when the party that conscripts are most likely to support is getting hit with lawfare by the pro-separatist party. Meanwhile, most career military people, especially the officers, belong to the pro-status quo party. The conclusion is that the separatist party lacks real presence within the military, which is institutionally pro-status quo with conscripts who are more supportive of the agnostic third party.

    • Lester_Peterson [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I'm usually one to err on the side of caution when it comes to estimating America's strength, the PLA certainly isn't relying on wishful thinking when they assess the strength of the U.S. military; so I won't either. However, practically all signs point to U.S. shipbuilding being extremely cooked. The best comparison of the relative effectiveness of a country's shipbuilding industrial capacity comes from their share of merchant tonnage. From that, the PRC produces half of global tonnage in civilian ships every year, while the U.S share is 0.2%.

      American shipbuilders survive entirely due to military contracts, where their performance is characterized by cost overruns, poor workmanship, and constant delays. On the other hand, the luxury of choices offered to PLANF procurement means China can launch new naval vessels at a rate and price magnitudes better than the U.S. navy. Comparing the difference in production efficiency between the two countries, and it's like how in WW2 the USSR spent one-one hundredth the man hours to build a single T-34 as the Nazis did for a Tiger tank (not an exaggeration, the costs were 3000 man hours for a T-34 and 300,000 per Tiger). And half the T-34s wouldn't break down before arriving to the battlefield.

      What lingering advantages the United States would have in a naval conflict come down to their inertia and (IMO) still superior air power. Both edges are fading fast, and 2027 may well be what the Pentagon has determined to be their "point of no return" after which PLA dominance in the Taiwan strait will be undisputed.

      • Teekeeus
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • Lester_Peterson [he/him]
          ·
          3 months ago

          Absolutely, and while manpower is something which could be remedied in the next few years by throwing money at the problem (which the U.S. has) the Navy's rotted sealift supply capacity can not. The resources a fleet consumes during war are astronomical, and American currently could not supply most of its ships simultaneously if it wanted to right now, during a relative peace. The Navy has only 33 active duty auxiliary vessels, and the majority of civilian ships in the sea-lift reserve are not currently seaworthy.

          The incomparable logistics advantage the PRC would have in the Taiwan strait (because their infrastructure and industrial base is right there instead of across an Ocean) is another reason why America would be virtually guaranteed to lose a protracted naval war there.

          • Teekeeus
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • thirtymilliondeadfish [she/her]
              ·
              3 months ago

              Under AUKUS (lol), UK & US nuclear powered subs will be rotated through Australia from 2027, while old virginia class subs will be purchased from the US from 2030, with delivery of new SSN-AUKUS subs expected "in the 2040s".

              US is also increasing troop rotations, co-funding base expansions to accommodate B52s from 2026, constructing fuel & weapons storage.

              'Australia' is and always has been a ready and willing participant in the empire

              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-31/china-tensions-taiwan-us-military-deploy-bombers-to-australia/101585380

              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-07/submarine-bossmulti-billion-aukus-payments/103952528

              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-24/north-australia-nt-us-defence-expansion-china-tensions-concerns/104376384

              • Hexboare [they/them]
                ·
                3 months ago

                'Australia' is and always has been a ready and willing participant in the empire

                Yeah because any leader who doesn't accede get couped

                on the other hand the (more) conservative party lost the election in part because of Chinese-Australian voters

                The Liberal Party suffered a massive backlash in suburbs with large numbers of Chinese-Australian voters at the federal election, a sign the Coalition paid a high price for its occasionally bellicose rhetoric and the deterioration in Australia’s relationship with China.

                https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-australian-voters-punished-coalition-for-hostile-rhetoric-20220525-p5aoem.html

                Anyway 2027 is too close for any significant logistic build up and there's really not that much here already (relative to what would be required).

                You'd reckon places like Guam and the US bases in Japan would be more useful

      • geikei [none/use name]
        ·
        3 months ago

        This problem is exacerbated by the fact there is a complete disconnect between what the actual state of the USN is and what the general public think the state of the USN is.

        The general public are convinced the USN is still by far the most powerful navy in the world with no one even able to compete and so they are not really cognisant of the very real issues facing the USN today. If the public don't really know about these issues then they're not going to vote for politicians who know or care about these issues which exacerbates things even more.

        The public will hear the USN has 11 aircraft carriers and assume the USN can send all 11 out to pummel whatever poor country is on the other end of the barrel when in reality the USN doesn't even have 11 carrier air wings due to budgetary conditions and is currently undergoing a severe carrier shortage and quite literally had to divert an entire carrier strike group whose original mission was to perform FONOPs in the South China Sea over to the Red Sea to deal with the Houthis last year because there was literally nothing else available to send. That's how bad things have gotten.

        The public has no idea about how there will be a severe cruiser shortage in the coming years once the Ticonderoga-class is forced to retire without any replacement due to CG(X) falling flat on its face years ago. The USN's stop-gap "replacement" for these cruisers is the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer but even then it's less capable in terms of VLS complement. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is at the very limit of its original design and yet the USN has no replacement for it yet with DDG(X) delayed as it is.

        Meanwhile, the PLAN's actual capabilities are increasing at a blistering rate, with destroyers like the Type 052D being very capable in their own right and cruisers like the Type 055 having practically no proper equal in the USN's inventory aside from their own cruisers that are about to be retired. And yet the public perception of the PLAN is simply a big navy that comprises of hundreds upon hundreds of useless and tiny patrol vessels with no big capital ships equivalent to those in the USN's inventory. Meanwhile the Chinese naval industry is nowhere close to sprinting. If anything, it’s moving at a rather conservative pace. They’re producing single carriers and single-digit submarines out of yards which could churn out many times that, but then again the PLAN loves its steady iterative cycles. After they’ve settled on a mature design, then you’ll start seeing mass production the way they printed frigates and destroyers. But they are in no hurry to produce large numbers of subpar vessels. It’s much more of a jog than a sprint.

        This massive overestimation of American capabilities and a serious underestimation of Chinese capabilities is what is worsening the issue so badly in the US. The public is convinced the USN alone could steamroll the entirety of China's military in an engagement over Taiwan when in actuality the combined efforts of the USN + USMC + USAF would arguably barely even be able to hold the Chinese off at this rate. If there is no sense of concern or urgency in the public's eyes, there will never be a sense of concern or urgency in Congress which is why for the past few decades the USN has been raising alarm bell after alarm bell only for Congress to basically completely dismiss them.

        If this does not change soon, by the 2030s you are likely going to see a PLAN that overmatches the USN in both capability, quantity and tonnage. If that happens, it'll be too late for a course correction. The US will be forced to relinquish the Western Pacific to China since they will simply lack the capability to challenge them. Or provoke a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in order to start a nuclear war

        This harkens very closely back to the attitude and position of the RN with respect to the USN back during the pre-WW2 era. The RN still held the advantage in most areas, tonnage especially, but the USN was catching up fast. Now, the USN is where the RN was and the PLAN is where the USN was

        • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
          ·
          3 months ago

          Also, its not just about the big boats, since missile saturation is very important in modern surface naval combat, China has a shitload of smaller shipyards that can churn out Type 22s and Type 054As if the need arises at a scale that US shipyards + their south Korean vassals can't hope to achieve.