In a fight between Russia and China, who would win? Lets say they're fighting over resources in Mongolia.
>>29540645
The Mongorians.
>>29540693
Damn firthy mongorians.
>>29540645
>Mongolia
>Resources
nigga.
>>29540735
have you not heard about endless coal and how China is pretty much buying the country?
>>29540735
>implying delicious Mongol pussy isn't a resource
>>29540645
>Mongolia
Both sides make peace and stop the conflict because nobody wants shitty Mongolia.
>>29540761
>delicious Mongol pussy
Never thought I'd see those words together, let alone in the same sentence.
>>29540645
They'd just divide the country in half.
China can wreck Far East and eastern Siberia
Russia has the ability to wipe out the entirety of China
That being said, neither is tempted to start any shit when deranged lunatics in Washington have just placed both countries on the top of the strategic threats list. Once the US implodes on its massive debt and falls apart due to the impending racial war, then we'll see.
Dude, it's easier to BUY Mongolia.
That's what the Chinese are doing, half the buildings in Ulanbaatar (which is pretty developed actually) are owned by Chinese shell firms.
Khalkin Gol 2.0 anyone?
Russians vs Chinese
Russian tanks going across the river to storm Chinese this time rather than Japs.
>>29540735
rare earth metals you dingus
pic related: dingus
Russia would dominate china.
>>29543052
>>29543215
Yeah im gonna go ahead and second this
If China's military is anything like their goods production, shoddy and just barely good enough then they're fucked
>guys do u think a country in which has seen combat for the last 25 years, and has troops stationed in combat zones right now would win against a country which hasnt seen combat since WWII?
The Finns
> In a fight between Russia and China, who would win?
freedom
>>29543052
>when deranged lunatics in Washington have just placed both countries on the top of the strategic threats list.
How is being a realist "deranged"?
Name two bigger strategic threats.
russia, they would probably just nuke the unholy shit out of the chinese then do a massive blitzkreig of tanks.
>>29543995
>Name two bigger strategic threats.
Why the fuck are they threats? had they done anything that directly harmed the US and its citizens and their interests?- and no the interest of the miniscule few at the top do not count.
>>29543300
That's not true, they..had a border scuffle with India and gave up, and got humiliated by fucking Vietnam.
>>29544012
>Why the fuck are they threats?
Because the have the potential to do alot of harm and are not US aligned by any strech of the imagination.
Russia has a real chance to draw the us into war via nato obligations, and china has a real chance to draw the us into war via conflict with japan, korea, the Philippines and other conflicts in the SCS.
>>29540645
For some reason, I think the Russians would win. Chinese development of their armed forces, from what I've been observing since 2000, is directly aimed at countering the US at sea through area denial and a larger blue navy/coastal defenses, while Russia's entire development of its forces has been moving far more towards aerospace defenses and rapid maneuver warfare.
There's also the issue of Russia having over a 5000 warhead advantage to China's 300 (and they only have around less than 100 strategic ICBMs IIRC).
It seems that Russia would be far more advantaged in a direct border war than China is, and most of this is due to how they have developed their doctrines in the last decade.
China has been trying to counter the emerging US led cordon alliance with Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines on its naval borders, while Russia has been preparing for military combat in its near abroad that might be terror-related or Western-influenced uprising related and they have to deal with it in a rapid manner. It has already fought in several wars in the near abroad in the past 20 years and their current doctrine shows.
Basically, there's not enough money in the world to have a fully prepared military. Even our US armed forces have been so focused on COIN, that we have basically ignored much of our conventional capacity for war in terms of funding and development for over a decade until Russia showed it can still fight.
Impressive
Russia has the courage to challenge China? They have eyes but cannot see Mt. Tai. Chinese military will show them the distance between heaven and earth. Even 4chan knows that it is for their own good to kowtoe to China.
>>29544029
>that we have basically ignored much of our conventional capacity for war in terms of funding and development for over a decade until Russia showed it can still fight.
This meme.
Our ground forces have focused on coin but our naval and air forces never missed a conventional beat.
>>29541234
You obviously aren't a curious porno searcher.
Imagine being a Chinese tanker, peering through the optics of your T-72 and seeing these motherfuckers coming at you.
>>29544024
>Because the have the potential to do alot of harm and are not US aligned by any strech of the imagination.
So instead of talking to these people and saying- "hey how about we talk about averting WW3 between us by laying groundrules and negotiating and compromising on our conflicting interests?" you grab your minions(the ones who are itching to drag you in their fight anyway), close ranks and say fuck you to their faces?
I don't know what to say anymore...
>>29544038
>Our ground forces have focused on coin but our naval and air forces never missed a conventional beat.
Who the fuck do you think fights wars and actually has to hold ground against the enemy?
>>29544045
Damn.
>China
>T-72
My bad.
>>29544049
Don't be. Their backbone Type-96 are bretty close to T-72s in capability and ancestry.
>>29544046
Pretty much.
You can be a bitch and try to negotiate. If you lose you lose everything. Or you can hold a gun with the hammer locked back, to their head while they do the same.
After about a decade or so shit changes for better or worse for both countries before they try to decock the hammer.
Welcome to international politics.
>>29544047
Who the fuck do you think is the most flexible and able to transition between one and the other the quickest?
>>29544062
>Welcome to international politics.
and what did it lead to? It gave us two, not just 1 World Wars, and dismantled most of the world powers of those times.
>You can be a bitch and try to negotiate.
sure. the tail wagging the dog is so much better.
>>29544067
Nice red herring.
Being able to be the most flexible doesn't mean anything. Re-equipping entire divisions and reorganizing them for a conventional war is still a massive task.
Retraining the entire army to deal with sand people with no air support to deal with other soldiers with comparable training and all sorts of gadgetry is not something you can fucking do in one month, not even a year. It took us years until we even had a drop in yearly casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. This shit doesn't happen with the snap of your fingers.
Being "most flexible" is relative.
>>29544096
>and what did it lead to?
The last half century being historically the most peaceful and prosperous in modern history.
Go ahead, argue this.
>>29544062
>>29544096
You guys seem to take the extreme positions on both sides of the international political spectrum.
>>29540721
Keep breaking my shitty wall
>>29544113
>The last half century being historically the most peaceful and prosperous in modern history.
Yeah, because the 2 superpowers acted like it and talked over stuff. They can and did fuck with each other's pets and petty interests but never has it ever reached the point that it lead to both sides threatening nuclear annihilation over.
>>29544110
>Being able to be the most flexible doesn't mean anything.
Yep, absolutely nothing. (Kek worthy, btw)
>Retraining the entire army
>entire army
Again, kekworthy. Scouts and airsav, along with most of the heavy armoed battalions kept the exact same equipment they use today and kept their training by and in large too.
>Re-equipping entire divisions and reorganizing them for a conventional war is still a massive task.
Pretty big, but its mostly complete.
>is not something you can fucking do in one month, not even a year.
Yeah..thankfully its been far, far longer than a month or a year. Operations in iraq ended in 2011.
>It took us years until we even had a drop in yearly casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Casualties were never really an issue in both wars.
>>29544120
>Mongolian chicks are famous in China for having bigger tits than Han women
And you know this why?
>>29544134
>Yeah, because the 2 superpowers acted like it and talked over stuff. They can and did fuck with each other's pets and petty interests but never has it ever reached the point that it lead to both sides threatening nuclear annihilation over.
>never has it ever reached the point that it lead to both sides threatening nuclear annihilation over.
AHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA, you IGNORANT fuck.
Last (you) that you will get from me. Enjoy your last word, im sure it will be just as ignorant as this response was.
>>29544144
You gotta chill m8, this is only an internet discussion, no need to be so mad.
>>29544139
Time is relative. Being the most flexible when it takes years to reorganize is the main point of that post. Good job completely ignoring it.
Our training has not been kept the same nor have our forces. We have had massive defense spending cuts in the last five years and have mainly been using our military for what is essentially antiterrorism operations and COIN in Afghanistan. We have also not given up on COIN since we still have military troops operating bases in Iraq.
Casualties not being an issue? People died, you fuck. What kind of annoying armchair general are you?
>>29543300
>a country which hasnt seen combat since WWII?
>China
"wow"
>>29544120
E-evidence, anon?
>>29544144
>AHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA, you IGNORANT fuck.
oh lawd the irony. Dunning-Krueger anyone?
lemme see- the closest we got to threats of nukings, Cuba, was due to the Sovs getting buttblasted(and rightfully so) over Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey. A 5 minute window from launch to impact is not a petty issue- its a life threatening one.
>>29544153
>Being the most flexible when it takes years to reorganize is the main point of that post.
Yes, and good job ignoreing the main point of my post, which is that the two branches that were mostly unaffected takes far, far longer to reorganize.
>Our training has not been kept the same nor have our forces.
I agree. They changed significantly after the iraq war ended.
>We have had massive defense spending cuts in the last five years
We had sequestration which is a little different than straight cuts. Funding is still there for large projects in each branch.
>have mainly been using our military for what is essentially antiterrorism operations and COIN in Afghanistan.
Very small number of troops that have always been (even pre 9/11) advisors.
>Casualties not being an issue? People died, you fuck. What kind of annoying armchair general are you?
>muh feels
Its war, you fuck. Its not gumdrops and lolipops. People die.
The fact of the matter is the amount of friendly deaths was historically insanely low.
Go pull that feels shit elsewhere.
>>29544173
>Funding is still there for large projects in each branch.
You have to be honest here, but funding for large projects isn't the same thing as funding for battle readiness. Even outgoing US generals have reiterated that we are at our least ready since after the Iraq War for a conventional conflict.
>>29544173
4,425 total deaths
32,223 wounded in action
Just in Iraq.
It's historically low if we compare it with mass mobilizations. But we never had a mass mobilization of troops.
>>29544155
That does beg the question: What combat experience does China have in the last 50 years? Do they still have experienced generals on hand?
>>29543995
Simultaneously antagonizing largest nuclear power and largest growing economy on the planet seems pretty fucking retarded to me. Especially when the nations you aim to defend against them either resent American military presence or have no inclination to fight for themselves.
>>29544227
>Especially when the nations you aim to defend against them either resent American military presence
Name em, so i can crush you.
>inb4 3 guys holding a sign.
>>29544207
>about 200,000 for initial invasion, then 100,000 rotated in and out every year for about 10 fucking years
>4.5k deaths
That ratio is absolutely great.
>>29544183
>You have to be honest here, but funding for large projects isn't the same thing as funding for battle readiness.
Which is exactly what the US army is doing. They have smaller projects ongoing, organic air defence and next gen battle networking, however the bulk is going towords the pivot to fighting more conventional forces.
They just got done with this round of exercises last year, dragon spear.
>>29544012
I know this was from a while ago, but you do realize both China and Russia have basically been waging a cyber war against the US for years right? And did you also know about Russians making false flag videos to get Americans killed by terrorist? Jesus Christ I hope you're not an American , if so you're the definition of a useful idiot.
>>29544236
Overall its estimated between all the branches that 2.5 million people served in both iraq and Afghanistan.
Assuming that more forces were in iraq, 1.5 million for them, 1 million for afghanistan....
5k deaths for 1.5 millon people over 8 years approches average baseline death rates.
>>29544265
I can't really blame em. We've been trying to topple their governments with our NGOs for some time now. There's a reason why USAID had to say sorry about trying to set up a twitter program for revolutionaries in Cuba when they got caught.
Our money comes with strings attached and everyone around the world literally sees that, except most of the American populace apparently.
>>29544267
You have the death rate in WW2, Korea and Vietnam to compare?
>>29544267
Shiiiit.
The US for its total pop has 821 deaths per 100,000 pop. A YEAR.
Its far,far below the average death rate.
>>29544265
Wouldn't it make sense to put Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Pakistan on top of the list though?
'Cyber war' vs Al Qaeda or the Taliban?
>>29544281
I think he's working off "total military deaths/total military forces deployed" not the average US rate. Which makes sense, considering what we're talking about in this thread.
>>29544265
>but you do realize both China and Russia have basically been waging a cyber war against the US for years right?
And the Americans spy on everyone even their allies- your point is?
>And did you also know about Russians making false flag videos to get Americans killed by terrorist?
Oh you mean the one that is hilariously badly done and didn't even get that many views compared to your average cat video. That, as opposed to multibillion games franchises portraying the evil Ruskies and Chinese as subhumans to kill by the gallon ensuring a large part of the American young male population is frothing at the mouth against them.
>>29544276
Veitnam is sketchy.
The us put in actual ground troops in 1965 to 1973, but had secret squirrel units in since the 50s to help the french.
Being we are talking about regular units we will say 65 to 73, or about 8 years. So similar timeframe.
2.7 million americans served in veitnam, so rounded up about 3 or twice the amount that served in iraq.
They did have over 50,000 deaths though, or 10x that of iraq.
>>29544207
>>29544207
Yeah, I samefagged because your response needed 2 memes.
>>29544336
In short, 2x the troops, but over 10x the deaths in the same timespan.
Veitnam was way worse.
>>29544290
I was compareing it to the average US death rate as a baseline/control. Obviously there is more to it (nobody is dying of old age in the military, rather, its statisticly irrelevant).
Maybe infant death rates would be more viable....meh. its all very rough anyways, point is the deaths were really, really fucking low.
>>29543300
>>29544018
>which hasnt seen combat since WWII
it's like you fags have never heard of the Korean war
>>29543300
What about that time in the 60's when Russia and China had a border scuffle and China stole a T-64(?)
>>29540645
>Russia and china killing eachother who wins
The USA by default
>>29540645
Mongolia is huge. Chinese advantage in manpower and production would bring the victory.
>>29540645
Any side that takes the offensive will lose
>>29540645
China, it's not even a question.
Russia isn't even a shadow of what the Soviet Union was in its waning years.
Everyone else.
>>29544041
I usually just browse amateur videos, or specifically look up Amateur Allure videos.
>>29544120
>are famous in China for having bigger tits
I'm sold.
Depends on who wins the next tank biathlon
>>29540693
FIRST REPLY BEST REPLY
>>29543117
Redbone coonhound?
>>29540693
Tengri is pleased
>>29544155
>>29546069
I honestly meant to say the Korean War not WWII but in my drunken state
I dont know much about China's involvement in Vietnam, but they never sent like an official detachment, right?
So my point still stands. China has fuck all for experienced soldiers and commanders, while Russia has been perfecting their tactics in the last 50 years.
I dont give a fuck about China's "little skirmishes". In a full out conflict I think China would be rekt by the big bear.
>>29540645
The Russians would defeat the Chinese.Russian equipment is of superior quality and the Russian Armed Forces are relatively large enough to take on China.
>>29540645
Fallout Scenarios
>>29543995
Israel and Mexico
>>29544018
You forgot the part where they own a significant amount of Indian and Vietnamese land from the wars they "lost".
>>29544053
No. Just no
>>29544120
There are 680 million Chinese women...
Oh wait we are memeing.
>>29552635
The Russian Armed Forces are under 800,000 at the moment, not even the MOD pretends that its 1,000,000+ any more.
>>29544216
They fought India, Vietnam, and themselves during that time.
They haven't had an active war since 1979. Speaks on how "aggressive" they supposedly are. America went to war 11 times since then in comparison.
Russia Definitely Russia. There was a previous war with Russia and China over territory and russia destroyed a division of ~100,000 Chinese infantry with less than 100 new rocket launcher trucks.
>>29552743
Great source there.
>>29552635
Leaving out nukes.
Strategically, Russia could barely respond with a fourth of their active forces to a Chinese invasion of Siberia. If China BTFO the roads and railroads in Yakutia, then they'd effectively strand the eastern half of Russia with what few forces it has.
A Chinese invasion of Western Russia would take years and be absolutely pointless. But they'd likely win because of sheer economic advantage.
>>29552691
>No. Just no
Go back to redd1t memelord.
>>29552730
The pic was flawed.Hope these numbers are accurate.The Russian Armed Forces have 766,055 personnel while the People's Liberation Army has 2,285,000 personnel.
>>29544326
what is this video you speak of
>>29552782
>Leaving out nukes.
Why, this sort of scenario is exactly when Russia would use nukes. At least according to their nuclear strategy.
>Russia could barely respond with a fourth of their active forces to a Chinese invasion of Siberia.
What would stop them from transferring most of Centeral MD and a large portion of Western MD?
>If China BTFO the roads and railroads in Yakutia
Why doesn't Russia just do the same to north-eastern China then. They have a better equipped and more experienced airforce, and much better air defences.
>>29540645
Mongolia is pretty much the only country where burnt out tank husks would improve property values.
China was also arguably better at fighting 40 years ago when they still had leadership with combat experience. They also got their ass bashed by Vietnam so that's not saying much. These days their NCOs get medals for being born in certain provinces. Their equipment is also Walmart versions of American gear. I doubt their plate could absorb an unkind word, let alone 7.62mm. Any war with Russia would get them nuked though, so this is just pointless conjecture.
>>29544012
>Why the fuck are they threats? had they done anything that directly harmed the US and its citizens and their interests?
A quote from Mark Twain comes to mind, while reading this.
>>29552824
What?
Both of the anons were wrong.
>>29552902
Then they'd all be dead and this whole thread is pointless. Both sides would level each other with nukes.
Russia has very few strategic forces in Pacific Russia and Siberia. They can't possibly cut the Chinese off from an invasion of Pacific Russia since they don't have the forces in place to do that.
Even if they try transferring forces, it'd be nearly impossible with the blown railroads and complete lack of logistics in Eastern Russia.
>>29552908
>ass bashed by Vietnam
The Chinese were the ones who ended up with 2,000 sqkm of Vietnamese land.
>medals for being born in certain provinces
Yeah. They are called regional medals for service in one of the five military regions.
If you're saying they get medals just for being born in a rich province, I'm gonna need a source.
>walmart version
Nigger, they build those massive freight ships you see, 60% of world steel, and have all the experience and technical know-how of Russia (for a price of course). If all their equipment was shit, then I don't get how their economy is worth $12 trillion.
You're just wrong.
>>29553115
>Russia has very few strategic forces in Pacific Russia and Siberia.
What do you mean? That is the point of strategic forces, as opposed to tactical forces.
Why wouldn't the Tu-22Ms, Tu-160s and Tu-95MSs be able to hit China? Let alone Su-24Ms and the Su-34s.
>They can't possibly cut the Chinese off from an invasion of Pacific Russia
How is China doing it then? With Tu-16s?
>it'd be nearly impossible with the blown railroads and complete lack of logistics in Eastern Russia.
Maybe they could use the second (by a long way) largest airlift fleet in the world.
>>29552677
What Vietnamese land? That war was waged to try and get the Vietnamese out of Cambodia so the Beijing-friendly Khmer rouge would get breathing room to recover. The Chinese not only didn't gain any land, they failed utterly and then had the gall to declare victory anyway.
>>29553115
You don't need much troops to defeat China. Having shitload of MLRS, ballisitic missiles, strategic bombers and best AA in the world would be enough. Pretty much the same story like with the US should americans ever get suicidal enough.
>>29540645
The chinks. There's more of them and their population is a fuckload closer. Their tech is about the same.
>>29553115
>Even if they try transferring forces, it'd be nearly impossible with the blown railroads and complete lack of logistics in Eastern Russia.
Then what the fuck are the PLA going to use to mount and sustain an invasion force? backpackers? Its a literal desert wasteland in the vast expanse across the Russo-Chinese border, with hundreds of miles in between railways and sparse roads, railways and roads that are few and easy enough to monitor across their entire stretches. Any PLA advance is going to look like the highway of death writ large, it might take awhile for the slaughter to pick up with the presence of Chinese mobile SAMs but given the forcibly lack of depth due its required proximity to the road/rail and the sheer weight of standoff munitions the Russians can employ in SEAD/DEAD its a foregone conclusion.not in favor of the PLA.
>>29553165
>have all the experience and technical know-how of Russia (for a price of course)
If by all you mean their last-gen tech at best?
>If all their equipment was shit, then I don't get how their economy is worth $12 trillion.
comparative advantage. Just because they are the best at shitting consumer goods out doesn't mean they are there with the best of the best in arms manufacturing.
>>29553216
>Maybe they could use the second (by a long way) largest airlift fleet in the world.
Even the entire US airlift capability can't haul enough assets for a handful divisions.
And for a fight like this you need tens of divisions at least. The good news though is that Russia doesn't need to airlift its entire armored divisions, just the strategic SAMs like the S-400/300 and their attendant units to protect the valuable railway nodes. Easy enough, as Syria shows they can easily redeploy a battery in 24 hours and immediately upon arrival the whole thing is up and running.
>>29553783
And Cambodia is still Chinese aligned. Great success.
Russia wins because russia's oil consumption is low and getting lower. meanwhile china can't keep up with its middle class chugging liquid gold. the chinese population does not have the willpower to suffer through the shortages
also russia has had a presence in the middle east for decades. china already can barely contain the terrorists inside and outside of their western borders, the russians can easily destabilized that region
>>29554212
>chinese population does not have the willpower to suffer through the shortages
IKR? And the Great Leap Forward led to the collapse of the People's Republic of China- oh, wait.
>china already can barely contain the terrorists inside and outside of their western borders
>"Jihadists" who can't even have access to firearms and must resort to silly knife attacks.
>>29554232
>the generation lived 40 years ago under a communist installed by russians is the same as the generation today that worships money
you are very well educated, where are you from? america?
>"Jihadists" who can't even have access to firearms and must resort to silly knife attacks.
hurr durr what do you think happens when the russians give them guns and explosives?
>>29554194
lol no, Cambodia is an odd blend of Russian-"Free" Pacific alignment. At this point, the only China aligned countries in South East Asia are Laos and to a much lesser extent, Myanmar.
>>29540645
chinese are ruthless
>>29554212
On that note, it is important to keep in mind that while Russia has considerable Middle Eastern clout, China has a shit ton in Africa, could they deprive Russia of any much needed minerals? I Russia has a lot of said resources, but do they import anything from Africa?
>>29554281
sibera has everything comrade
what a retarded thread. the only useful thing i received from it was a tip for monogl porn
>>29554281
>On that note, it is important to keep in mind that while Russia has considerable Middle Eastern clout, China has a shit ton in Africa, could they deprive Russia of any much needed minerals? I Russia has a lot of said resources, but do they import anything from Africa?
lolnope. Africa is strictly European(French) backyard, to a lesser extent like Central Asia's is to Russia. China may come in and out-invest them financially, but everyone knows the Russians and Europeans got the power structures firmly in their pockets. Bretty much money is all China have and against the combined soft(cultural and even ethnic affinity with especially the elites) and hard power(outright regime change threats) of the current owners they can't really compete.
>>29544281
How about people in the military age range and health requirements? If you're preselecting healthy young men, your death rate is going to be way lower.
>>29540645
Hard to say, largely because China's ability to force project is entirely untested. It's very likely that Russia could win based off of:
Combat Experience
Logistics (While Russian Logistics is laughable, oxymoronic even, it has been tested and used, unlike the Chinese).
Tested and used SOF
Their stuff is the poorly made stuff that the Chinese make poorly made copies of.
It's been theorized that China wouldn't be able to sustain itself if it had to project military power, so their military will always be a truly defensive force. But, again, theory.
>>29554397
>Logistics (While Russian Logistics is laughable, oxymoronic even, it has been tested and used, unlike the Chinese).
Their overland logistics is actually the best; otherwise they wouldn't be staging wargames involving tens to hundred thousands of people with thousands of tanks, arty, ifvs, and trucks and other vehicles across thousands of miles from their initial deployment areas with the regularity that they do.
For example their biggest one yet involved:
>160,000 servicemen, 1000 tanks, 130 planes and 70 ships
>The statement noted that the drill would require some units to travel more than 3,000 kilometers from their usual deployment sites. Seven hundred flat wagons and 50 railway cars were assigned to perform the transfer.
All that in 2 days btw.
>>29554397
>While Russian Logistics is laughable, oxymoronic
Btw, I know you are just panning for a witty way to state your point, no matter how maligned it is.
But do you really think the world's biggest country by landmass would have shit logistics? The very virtue of their country being large as fuck would've required them to keep a logistics capacity commensurate with the challenge- otherwise they wouldn't be holding that much land in the first place. Same as how geographic pressure has made the USN the dominant one.
>>29543995
>Inciting shit in Ukraine
>Arab Spring
>making geopolitical power plays against Russia to the point of funding terrorists
>Numerous politicians calling for tougher actions against Russia or an outright intervention in Ukraine, some even wishing war upon Russia
>Economic warfare upon Russia
Granted China is and will continue to be a strategic threat, but post fall of the wall Russia is only a threat because we deem it a threat and we treat it with hostility, and this includes before Ukraine/Georgia. We had the opportunity after the fall of communism to mend bridges and we just full on decided to blow up the supports and the construction company.
Yeah, our leadership is actively moving us towards a WW3 scenario, and they damn well know it.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Poking the bear, poking the bear, poking the bear.
And what makes it even worse - we are pushing Russia and China together. If they form a strategic economic and military alliance.....
>>29544265
We've been waging unrestricted economic warfare on the Russians to be fair.
The chinks though......
Now there is a country that wouldn't have lasted to the current era if it wasn't for the warming of china-us relations during the Sino-Soviet split and the easing of tariffs/trade restrictions/sanctions.
We may have been there to check China at every turn, but it doesn't help that China is growing stronger because we can't get enough cheap Chinese goods
>>29554516
alot of countries with lower GDP have very happy population without chinese crap
you grossly overestimate how much people depend on cheap garbage
>>29543052
>Falls apart due to the impending racial war
Nigga if the massive riots in the 60's and 90's (which dwarfed Ferguson and the other recent riots) didn't cause the race war, if the Black Liberation Army and the other Black Power armed groups didn't cause the race war, if the amount of civil strife during the Vietnam War didn't cause the race war, then nothing right now will.
>US implodes
People have been predicting that for decades. People have been wrong.
>>29551351
China fought a war against Vietnam in the 70's and got it's ass kicked. Battle hardened NVA with camo AK's, SVD's, RPK's, PKM's, RPG's and RPD's and the latest in soviet gear laid absolute fucking waste to post Sino-Soviet split chinks with SKS variants.
Chink Type 59 tanks popping like it's hot from crack NVA RPG and SPG teams
>>29552743
Never heard about that, but there was a disputed Island skirmish where a force of Russian Naval Infantry (with air and naval support) cleaned house of a numerically superior Chinese defense, one of the hottest periods of the Sino-Soviet split
>>29554577
meant *soviet naval infantry
>>29554543
Except alot of consumer electronics are being manufactured in china now
>>29554559
>Territorial changes
>Small loss of Vietnamese territory along Sino-Vietnamese border to China in Cao Bằng and Lạng Sơn Provinces, namely Nam Quan Gate and half of Bản Giốc Falls.
dat ass kicked!
>>29553165
>If all their equipment was shit, then I don't get how their economy is worth $12 trillion.
What's the causal relationship between those two again?
>>29554585
do you think apple or samsung makes dollars and dimes on their phones? electronics have really high margins
so their margins shrinks by 5%, so what?
>>29554624
do you think it's cheap or convenient to move factories or train workers?
>>29554559
>Battle hardened
Most of the Vietnamese units were either 2nd-line or militia-tier. The bulk of Vietnam's combat troops were still in Cambodia when the Chinese rolled in from the North. And it was against these diminished Vietnamese forces that the Chinese got their nose very, very bloodied. Hence the pullout. Also remember that the Chinese military was probably at one of its lowest points in the Cold War
>Coming off the heels of the Cultural Revolution and preceding Great Leap Forward, both of which did not see good things happen to the military
>Officer Corps gutted
>Not many vets left from Korea, or WW2
>Logistics is shit
>Training is shit-tier
>Chinese attempts at combined arms is laughable
>Despite the fact that they held the initiative did next to nothing with their air force that was meaningful, indicative of inexperience
In short, the Chicoms were way too overconfident and stupid in '79. However border clashes continued for about a decade and then some, and the Chinks slowly got the measure of things at least locally. I despise the fiddy centers, but the Chinks have managed to at least pull off the impression that they're building a 1st-world military, even if a lot of their equipment is literal knockoffs. They're also at least giving off the impression that they're trying (emphasis on try) to develop a semi-competent officer corps. All of which could mean diddly shit if they go to war with Vietnam again and maybe they get stopped again. What I would say however is that I believe this would be more of a close run thing. The Soviets gave an assload of military aid to the Vietnamese in at the time modern weaponry giving them a parity and in some cases superiority over Chinese troops in terms of kit and weaponry. That balance is no longer there.
>NVA this, NVA that
By this point in time its the PAVN
>>29554638
do you honestly think a tech company is gonna bother with undisciplined fat americans?
and factories dont cost nearly as much as you think it does
>>29554640
Same anon here, started reading into some stuff on the Sino-Vietnamese war, what I suspected about Chinese unpreparedness is actually far worse.
>Due to cultural revolution, little to no visible ranks on uniforms leading to mass confusion when multiple officers are present and trying to coordinate
>Chinese air force was in the air, but did not in any meaningful way participate, may have been an attempt to keep the Vietnamese migs on the ground (which they did for some reason)
>Grave inexperience with the terrain in Northern Vietnam, whole tank units snarled when bridges fall under their weight or funneled into one area by terrain
>Artillery corps not properly coordinating with advancing infantry resulting in many cases of friendly fire
>Lack of coordination and proper reconnaissance means China cannot bring their numerical superiority to bear, logistics and troop movement is slower than hell
Also interestingly the Chinese appeared to encounter more resistance from paramilitary units than regular PAVN forces, also leading the Chinese to start killing basically everything they thought was hostile or looked Vietnamese (heard some anecdotal stories from another thread about Chinese tanks rolling over villages n shit). It appears to me that Vietnam survived mainly because the PLA were overwhelmingly too incompetent and institutionally fucked to pull off a simply land invasion. This was Afghan Army-tier retardation. Though the source I'm reading has some implications that Deng did this to enact military reform, which is somewhat plausible. Also unrelated but it also makes some interesting connections with local PLA commanders and the Golden Triangle, apparently the PRC was/is getting in on the Opium Trade.
>>29540761
Dayyyyum. Mongol girls are what I wanted Chinese girls to be. Thank you annon. I'll ad this to the trip I've been planning.
>>29544046
That would be the right thing to do, but ignoring those ideas is exactly what lead to the first world war becoming a WORLD war. Nothing changes in any drastic measure.
>>29540645
China, as they have atleast a semblance of an economy.
>>29540645
>trying to fight the strongest land army on planet earth
I feel sorry for China.
>>29554644
those "undisciplined murrifats" are still some of the most productive people out there, dumbsit
>>29555546
China would utterly dominate and embarrass Russia in a land war, the only people who think otherwise are delusional Slavs
Majority of Chinese military gear is of Russian origin, the Chinese have no air force to speak of. Their navy has never been in a war.
The only war they won was against India, that due to Indian leaders lack of nerves.
One thing that China has is it does not care about human lives and cost of it's own soldiers.
>>29553165
>The Chinese were the ones who ended up with 2,000 sqkm of Vietnamese land.
Which they withdrew from in shame, having sustained 62,000 casualties and 500 vehicles in ONE MONTH to guerrilla tactics, a full 1/4th of their initial attacking force.
>If you're saying they get medals just for being born in a rich province, I'm gonna need a source.
Remind me again what war have they've fought in recent memory?
>If all their equipment was shit, then I don't get how their economy is worth $12 trillion.
How are these two correlated, again?
>You're just wrong.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
>>29555895
China got stomped hard by the Soviet Union already. This thread is pointless. Soviets killed 10 times more Chinese by using Grad, Chinese were so impressed by the Grad, they copied it as soon as possible.
>>29553977
>There's more of them and their population is a fuckload closer
How in the FUCK is this relevant in a modern warfare?
You send in a ten million men and half of them get SRBM'd to shit in their staging areas and other half starves after you cripple their logistics train. Good job, Mao, at least you fertilized that goddamn desert a bit for us.
>>29555967
Were grads used in the Zhenbao island incident? You seem to keep bringing these up but I'd like to see a sauce or something.
Neither would win.
Whatever developed area in Mongolia they tried to occupy they would both destroy.
I suspect china would take higher casualties though.
>>29556049
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=cwUY2yaa8n4C&pg=PT167&lpg=PT167&dq=BM-21+Grad+sino+soviet+war&source=bl&ots=zHOEBF3AtO&sig=cPGDYD68z5zOivjNZaNZsuZnZ_A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigs7nghITMAhUMl5AKHfwsCJQQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=BM-21%20Grad%20sino%20soviet%20war&f=false
>>29556115
Thank you for the link.
China
>>29555967
You mean the Soviet Union on its peak which only could archive a status quo against the weakest China which still suffered from the Cultural Revolution?
>>29554483
Russia has lower GDP than California by itself. It's not like it's the Cold War anymore and it's the second or third largest economy in the world, that's china. Russia is tenth.
>>29558630
Your point? Low GDP nominated by USD only affect a country with huge foreign imports and huge foreign debts. Russia has neither.
A nation's strength is determined by two measures: amount of energy resources, and the capacity for war. Both of which Russia has in abundance.
>>29556220
To be fair they had to shitfling under the covers to keep up the monolithic communism meme for the West.
>>29554585
Actually most electronics that are "made in China" are actually only assembled in China.
The really valuable technical parts are almost always made somewhere else.
Example: the electronic components like chips could be made in South Korea, then that is sent to China where the plastic frame and glass is stuffed with the electric guts, then the "made in China" sticker is stuck on.
This has changed, slowly, but China REALLY struggles to get on board with high tech stuff made locally, in particluarly because extremely high quality involves high quality engineers, high quality inputs (highly refined stuff, etc) and expensive specialized capital.
That's why China and America make drastically different things.
America mostly produces capital or industrial goods like bulldozers or airplanes or even niche goods like radchips for satellites or missiles, and those sell like .99 cent burgers at international markets.
China mostly makes only shit things domestically. But this is changing. Particluarly since most businesses who partner with Chinese firms have to transfer some of their tech- that's just the fee of entry.
the world
>>29556066
>I suspect china would take higher casualties though.
I suspect China would not give a shit about their losses until it starts setting in that their endless army isn't really endless. I mean what does it matter if it took the lives of 100,000 troops to capture 1 city? There are always more Chinese to conscript and the city now belongs to them. By the end the Russians will be mowing down retirees, 14 year old boys, and Mulan wannabe heroines in uniforms too big for them - and both sides will give zero fucks about the lives lost.
>>29562740
It's not as if the Russians can pour manpower either and the Mongolian military is nearly non existent. Maybe back in the days of open field charges with rattled out Mausers, Mosins and daos but if both militaries have access to modern equipment I can't imagine a scenario in which they would incur massive losses unless the Chinese fuck up and pull a Grozny.
