Which side will you choose in the future sino-Japanese war?
>me
>Canada is too irrelevant to do anything.
>>58230483
Add all of the US navy onto those stats for a more accurate picture
>>58230483
Japan
Always support the underdog
>mfw far away when shit goes down(WW3)
Probably will be sitting at my family's farmhouse while getting sucked by a prostitute.
>>58230483
Looking at the numbers alone like this can lead you to the wrong conclusion. Almost globalfirepower tier.
But I'll say Japan, since because they will certainly have the backing of the international community.
Japan, because India and China are not allies. Plus China supports Pakistan, who India is definitely not allies with.
Personally, I don't give a shit.
>>58230483
both
The side with justice of course
>>58230483
Best Korea
We and the European states will side with Japan as we like the Japanese over here and China scares us.
Also Japan has come to embody European values and now adapts them and speaks that language. China will only pretend to and seeks to undermine us
obviously japan
>>58230556
>95% of US navy more than 2 weeks from Japan
>"hurdur add it all hahahaha"
>>58230483
As China's side I fought with Japan. China is challenging the world and that's what Japan did. America and cucked Japan should die.
>>58231254
>>58231036
>>58230596
You governments won't move a finger.
![PACOM_2[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/zIvWLLC.png "PACOM_2[1].png")
>>58231281
>obviously Japan
I assume this is a personal opinion
>>58231405
Basically, combine the US, Japan, and Canada's firepower and then add Australia's on top of that.
Russia won't get involved.
China's fugged :D :D
>>58231405
Outdated
The US and Russian forces that are not in the pacific should not appear. They wouldn't be transfered in time anyways.
CANADA HAS THREE DESTROYERS, WHAT ARE THEY ARMED WITH, WEED BOMBS??? LOL ITS 2016 AND THEY HAVE 3 DESTROYERS LOL XDDDD
>>58231474
No Canada is neutral in this conflict gotta pls our chink masters :DDDDD
>>58231485
Damnit I know you meant to reply to me now give me that sweet (you)
>>58231474
No.
If a naval war happens between Japan and China in 2016 it'll be the US ships within two weeks of Japan, Japan, and China.
No other nations are obligated to help and have made that known.
>>58231254
Isn't Japan le ebil racist country though ? Or do normies not give a fuck yet because it's only not ok to be racist if you're white ?
>>58231474
If it came to a WW3 situation like this, Russia would get involved.
The coming economic collapse of the world would kill a neutral Russian government. The Russians never sit out a good war.
>>58231289
So China is just going to surprise attack them out of the blue and US will just agree that China owns Japan now?
>>58230483
China without a doubt.
All our manufactured goods comes from China.
>>58230483
Japan
>>58231405
>China and Russia
>1 aircraft carrier apiece
"New superpowers" they said
"Multipolar world" they said
>>58231649
Where were they during the Seven Years' War?
>>58231633
That doesn't matter they are in favour of liberal democratic values so therefore are our allies.
>>58231484
What, you think this kind of war would be over fast? Please.
>>58231359
It depends on the time frame.
There's certainly no reason why we wouldn't want to bring our shiny CBGs with their F35Bs to the mix.
We're reasonably assuming there's been a build up off pressure between the two sides over a long time frame.
>>58231651
The Chinese would definitely keep it quiet. Just like the nips did.
The US even in the cold war scenarios of a Soviet invasion of Europe planned to leave 70-80% of US ships homeside to defend from boomers. It's the same today.
>>58231689
>the aircraft carriers determine world power meme
HAHAHAHA U FUNNY HAHAHA
Nazis had zero (0) carriers.
>>58230483
>Which side will you choose in the future sino-Japanese war?
>sino-Japanese
Meh. I'd prefer to stay neutral, East and Southeast Asia are out of our sphere of interest. China is not our friend and Japan is de-facto our enemy, so we shouldn't get involved into this shit unless it would pose a threat to our security.
>>58231704
Probably starving and killing each other.
>>58231716
They are not hahaha.
>>58231740
Iraq took 1.5 weeks. A naval war against Japan combined with missile strikes to destroy most Japanese cities would be over within two weeks. The strategic advantage would be for China, and any major US response force would be met with MAD.
>>58231921
No alliances. It'd be retarded. NATO does not apply in the Pacific.
The Elizabeths would take three months to get to Japan. Not to mention they'd be hunted by Chinese subs the whole way.
The UK would stay out of it.
>>58232050
China is currently building three new nuclear powered carriers. It looks similar to the us Nimitz or Ford class carriers. They stole all your designs.
>>58232065
A defeated Western-aligned China would be a death sentence to Russia.
Russia+China have a de-facto alliance. Economically Russia would collapse without China. China needs the mitary technology. Ties have only strengthened over the last five year.
Russia would not stay out unless it was obvious the Chinese started the war.
The Japanese are just as likely to start the war.
>>58232050
They also had zero (0) sea power. And they fucking lost. Not really a good example.
>>58231689
We don't build carriers simply because our navy doesn't need them. Unlike the US, our country isn't going to play the world's policeman.
>>58232050
Nazi Germany wasn't a superpower though.
Number of alliances with the US
>Japan : 1
>China : 0
>>58230483
ASEAN will stand togethe with Japan and send China to hell
>>58232318
>The Japanese are just as likely to start the war.
Tbh i always though this. This is why kinda worries me the fact the they want to be free to build their military and go to war.
I don't doubt a bit that in the day they get what they want, they'd start flinging shit on Russia, China and Koreas.
>>58232257
No it does not and designs look similar because there's only one optimum way to design modern high-tech vehicles.
Why would the Chinese design a completely different looking carrier just so it looks differently?
Also,
>stole
Nah. Their next 2 carriers are significantly different. We have no clue about the 100,000 nuclear reactor one. It's only in design phase.
>>58230483
Japs would have backing from at least India and the US (probably Australia too, if China is the aggressor). I'd assume SEA nations would take the chance to take de facto control over disputed territory with China too.
The Chinks would probably lose.
We will always be loyal to one of our few friends in this world - Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
>>58232444
I keep getting weird Russian Intel that China is aiming to build three carrier battlegroups though.
>>58232159
Iraq was an isolated toy state. Japan is the third largest economy on earth, and it is backed closely by the largest.
Imperial Japan made the mistake, once, of assuming America could be intimidated out of war by a show of force. They were wrong. This war would be long, and grinding, and would likely destroyed much of the world we know, but the only way it will end is with the unconditional surrender of the Chinese.
>>58232341
They nearly won. Even so, that's not my point. They defeated multiple nations and conquered them before they eventually were defeated. They had practically NO navy, yet they fucked up Europe so bad it ruined the continent's geopolitical power forever.
It's a perfectly good example.
>>58232469
>SEA
>doing anything against china
?????
Laos, Cambodia, rely on China for foreign aid
>>58232502
>>58232519
Also, let's not pretend that every other Asian state won't also take this opportunity to slap the ChiComs down.
>>58230483
I choose America
>Arm them both
>make them pay a shit ton
>tell them to cut it out
>Nuke them to hell
God bless America
>>58232365
They almost beat all of Europe.
Your point is meaningless. Even superpowers can lose wars.
>>58232403
Hahaha where are the alliances then?
>>58231405
Why does Canada even have a navy.
>>58232539
It was also 70 years ago, before you could erase a city from the map with the press of a button
We shall help Japan.
I will volunteer to join the Nippon Ichi Foreign Legion and I will exterminate the commies hand in hand with my Japanese brothers in race.
>>58232415
All that matters is who starts it. Maybe the US will help, but no one else would help Japan if it started the war.
>>58232539
>they nearly won
Not really, man. The balance of power was always against them. Land power can only carry you so far. Now, if they'd had an air or navy force capable of forcing a landing on England, it MIGHT have gone the other way. But it didn't, and they didn't.
Were never going to beat the Soviets anyway.
>>58232549
There are Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Philippines dumbtwat, those countries you mentioned are just irrelevant ASEAN members
>>58232613
If China keep provoking the territories of our sea, soon
>>58232549
Vietnam and the Philippines will make a grab for it. Don't know about Malaysia or Brunei.
>>58232675
t. Weeb Hussar
>>58232623
Because byldos want to steal our ice.
>>58232623
because they have ocean access and are part of the commonwealth...
>>58232365
fair enough Ivan
Gib Crimea tho
>>58232725
God, Honour, Waifu.
>>58232611
>arming China
"no"
>>58232469
India would do nothing but mobilize their armies. Facing the entire PLA would be a ticket to political suicide.
ASEAN would do nothing and is meaningless anyways.
>>58232680
US will help. Kinda not have a choice, if you guys back off on Japan, Europe will think you'd do the same and slowly rely on Russia.
>>58231989
>The Chinese would definitely keep it quiet. Just like the nips did.
I highly doubt that is possible nowadays given the massive red flags of how invasion forces build up.
ELINT, SIGINT and HUMINT would all highlight signs of a force build up.
>>58232231
Again, I said under the assumption that there's been a force build up between both sides as tensions rise.
You play it off as if the US CBGs would not also be hunted by Chinese subs on their way.
The UK would certainly not stay out of it, we also have a vested interests and commitments in the region.
Regardless, none of us can "truly" say what would actually be happening or who doing what.
>>58232832
>being a fucktard
you
You never arm anyone with your best shit
Just some random crap
>>58232549
and China has been still receiving Official Development Assistance financial support from Japan.
In reality, wars between PLA/CCP vs Chinese citizens are more likely to happen.
China
>>58232861
>this american chink defending china again
Just go back to that barbarian shithole if china so great, wai chong
>>58232861
>India would do nothing but mobilize their armies. Facing the entire PLA would be a ticket to political suicide.
They don't need to face the entire PLA, it won't be an all out invasion, but China has regularly breached their territorial integrity by moving troops across the border into disputed areas for a few days and withdrawing. India would be quite likely to put some pressure on China, even if it's not decisive, it is still pressure.
>>58232761
Maybe they should invest in a real navy then?
>>58232515
They are working to have 5 CBG's by 2030.
1 Liaoning.
2 transition carriers based on Liaoning.
2 nuclear supercarriers
The first transition carrier recently was completed in Shanghai. Deployed in 2018.
The second will be finished in 2018. Deployed 2020-2021.
>>58232257
They are learning too fast, it may cause a lot of troubles in the nearest future.
>>58232318
>A defeated Western-aligned China would be a death sentence to Russia.
China will become western-aligned sooner or later. I'm sure if an open conflict between Russia and NATO happen now, they would most likely side with NATO and USA against us.
>Russia+China have a de-facto alliance.
We have no any documented military alliance with them, we don't even have a nonaggression treaty with China. Our relations with China are mostly mutually-beneficial trade, they consider us a good partner as long as we are useful to them.
>Economically Russia would collapse without China.
With current oil prices the collapse of Russian economy is just a matter of time.
>Russia would not stay out unless it was obvious the Chinese started the war.
The best Russia could do in that case is to sell them some advanced weapons.
>>58232257
A FUCKING RAMP
>>58232519
You're a fucking retard.
Ever heard of MAD?
>>58232599
Ever heard of nukes?
Invasions of Nuclear Power territory = Nuclear weapons.
>>58233001
>because they're under tremendous international pressure
>because they have any real threat of invasion
maybe Ireland should shut the fuck up?
ITT Chinese immigrant gommie fanfiction
>>58233126
MAD applies to the Chinks as much to the Americans (considering America has thousands more nuclear warheads). Nobody is going to lob off a nuke, and they can't use nuclear blackmail on another nuclear armed state.
>>58233077
Isn't the SCO a Ruski-Chink defence pact?
>>58233126
Ever hear of NUTS?
Nuclear weapons or rather the thread of them would be on the table from the getgo to escalate the conflict, in order to de-escalate the conflict.
>>58233223
>maybe Ireland should shut the fuck up?
Maybe you should stop roleplaying as countries?
>>58233228
There's going to guarntaneed warfare over the South China Sea and maybe for senkaku. Screencap this shit for future reference.
>>58232717
Churchill considered a peace treaty.
AKA the nazis nearly won.
>>58232722
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam would do nothing. There are no alliances.
The Chinese provoke you guys because there will never be an alliance. Why? Because China has nukes.
>>58232725
If they want to be nuked.
>>58233231
Eh, it depends entirely on what's happening.
Yanky policy is (correctly) "we can use nukes for anything and shiteee".
>>58232613
>They almost beat all of Europe.
Most of European countries had no decent armies (except for France, but that's an exception). And Germany wasn't alone, many European countries were allied with them.
>>58232779
Only after you gib Alaska.
But jokes aside - no. Crimea is under Russian sovereignty, it's not a matter of discussions.
>>58232887
The UK has way more vested interest with China. If you didn't notice last year.
>>58232982
Nice argument. I'm whiter than you ever will be you third world crypto-Muslim.
>>58233001
India has breached internationally recognized Chinese territory as well. Nothing has happened since the 80's
>>58233513
>India has breached internationally recognized Chinese territory as well. Nothing has happened since the 80's
But that is precisely my point. The Indian Government is ramping up nationalism due to inept economic policies, you think they won't take the chance to do a Crimea?
>>58233231
>Isn't the SCO a Ruski-Chink defence pact?
Lolno, it's only about cooperation in economy, science, education, etc. Not a single word about miliraty. We have CSTO defence pact, but it looks laughable compared to NATO, there's no way they could help us in a confrontation with the West.
>>58233286
maybe you should suck all sorts of cocks in hell?
>>58233126
Do the chinese even have enough nukes for MAD?
>>58233001
>Maybe they should invest in a real navy then?
Can't, liberals cut the defence budget and the conservatives decided that getting some shiny new aircraft was a better idea than giving us actual modern ships.
>>58233381
If China Nuke us then wat to takes? Fucking stupid
>>58233513
>playing the white card
How much those tinydicks promise you?
>>58233513
Are you suggesting that we'd be siding on China's side of conflict?
There's no bloody that the population or voting base here wouldn't throw a fucking fit over Australia and New Zealand being under threat and us doing nothing at minimum, forgetting we have obligations to Japan.
t. Trident, Tier 1 F35B and SIGINT brother.
>>58233800
They do.
>>58233800
Yeah, the CIA estimated it to be around 3000 warheads a few years ago, I think.
>>58233830
If it makes you feel any better, our largest ship is only 1900 tonnes and built for fishery patrols.
Don't we have these satelite drop weapons now? Kinetic space weaponery? We don't need nukes with those.
>>58233077
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
No they would not side with NATO or America. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Every single bit of political news from China+Russia shows huge amounts of political alignment. China needs Russia around. Russia really need China around.
They may sit it out, but they definitely won't help. The Chinese never get involved unless someone attacks them.
>>58233800
They have nukes, but they don't have enough delievery systems.
>>58233194
>>58233126
The Chinese have ~400 warheads and outdated rocketry.
We have ~5000, the best rockets in the world, the best subs, and the best missile defense systems.
Russia is the ONLY state capable of threatening us with MAD. If the ChiComs pull out nukes, they might get san francisco or LA. And in under a year the whole of China would be a blasted heath.
>>58233077
Oil is up to $45 today.
Russia's GDP expanded in March.
Oil went from 25% of GDP in 2013 to 18% in 2015
I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
>>58234348
No we don't.
Call of Duty isn't real Hans.
>>58234420
That's what I thought 2bh
Can the majority of their nukes even hit the US?
I cant imagine them just randomly firing them for MAD
>>58234452
>the best rockets in the world
Your missile corps has had technological problems (trying to maintain the systems without industry experience, they're not as accurate as they used to be) and morale problems tbf.
>>58234455
They're still set for recessions this year and only a modest growth next year.
>>58233077
Russia is more likely to side with Europe/US to counter China, than China is to side against Russia.
Russia is already getting closer to North Korea and Vietnam to try and balance against China, I honestly don't see your alliance lasting (China recently announced plans for an anti-Islamist alliance in Central Asia - they didn't even invite Russia).
>>58234452
China is the one who builds the microchips that guide your missiles though.
>>58234452
>We have ~5000, the best rockets in the world, the best subs, and the best missile defense systems.
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/americas-nuclear-arsenal-still-runs-off-floppy-disks
>>58234452
>best missile defense systems
Which isn't much, because BMD is hard as shit.
OPpenheimer says at *best* US current defences could take down 10-20 ICBM's in a nuclear war scenario.
>>58234378
>No they would not side with NATO or America.
Yes, most likely the would not. But i wouldn't rule such possibility out.
>China needs Russia around. Russia really need China around.
The problem is that we need them much more than they need us. I have no illusions about the Chinese, since China needs only our resources, our technologies and they would betray and backstab us the moment after we cease to be useful for them.
>>58234843
The US strategic nuclear fleet has been left in a super shitty state.
>>58233231
Yes and MAD will stop conventional fighting.
You get how this works right? Cuba 1962 was back when the Soviets had a huge disadvantage to America in nukes, but they still defused the situation because of the millions of deaths it would still cause.
>>58233285
I agree. But China/Japan is not.
>>58233613
And nothing will happen. MAD makes it irrelevant.
>>58233682
SCO includes military cooperation in science and training.
>>58233800
They do. At least to kill a few million Americans and a shitload of Nips.
>>58233833
They don't want your shithole. They can buy it for far less than a war costs.
Most Chinese actually like Indonesia. The PRC government is just a bunch of faggots.
>>58234075
No I'm not you illiterate fuck.
The Australia-US alliance precludes military support in a Japan-China war. Unless China attacks the US forces first, Australia will sit it out.
>>58234420
You saw their parade recently?
The last 5 years their ICBM's rose to 550+. MIRV equipped.
That's enough to make life miserable for anyone.
>>58234940
>Yes and MAD will stop conventional fighting.
>You get how this works right?
I'd recommend you read about the Indian-Pakistan war back in the 90s. Both of them were nuclear powered but didn't utilise their weapons.
You seem to think escalation goes from 0 to 100 and there's no inbetween.
>>58234940
It is not okay to reply in this way.
And you are wrong and stupid about mostly everything about the nuclear weapons.
Lurk the nuclear threads on /k/
>>58231359
Kind of depends, really.
>>58234557
You don't need a thousand ICBM's to have MAD.
In the 1962 Cuban missile crisis Russia had 30-40 ICBM's.
CIA and DoD analysts predicted America could destroy 95% of the Russian forces in Cuba before they could attempt to launch.
But MAD was still taken into account by Kennedy.
>>58234656
They are set for a mild recession with oil at $40.
With oil at $45 and rising as it has been since February Russia's GDP will expand.
The ruble already appreciated 24% this year.
Russia will either sit it out or help China.
The EU will sit it out. The UK will most likely not go to war.
This'll most likely be a Japan+US versus China war. Military analysts agree with me.
>>58233435
I don't actually mind; taking it scared all the euros back into our camp
>>58235199
>Military analysts agree with me
You can find Military analysts that support anything. Meaningless statement.
I *strongly* recommenced you read this book.
On the nuclear note.
http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=21511
>this fantasizing chink
M8 what are you doing here
>>58234918
The Chinese have nothing to gain from a weak Russia. The Russian aligned nations in Europe keep America focused on Europe and not Asia. That's worth BILLIONS to the Chinese.
>The problem is that we need them much more than they need us. I have no illusions about the Chinese, since China needs only our resources, our technologies and they would betray and backstab us the moment after we cease to be useful for them.
The American government sees much of NATO the same way. Japan and Korea included. They need us.
But we don't abandon them because they still give us a lot of benefits and extend our power.
China's leaders view Russia the same way. A convenient ally.
Russia denying China would just be stupid. It isolates Russia even more, so Putin has chosen to align with China.
Nuclear powers don't go to war with each other and the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.
China will take the Senkaku Islands even though they don't deserve them and continue to build bases even though they don't have proper claims to them.
If China is stopped it will be through economic means, not through a war.
>>58235087
I recommend you read about it as well.
In 1999 Pakistan and India had 20 nukes between each other and they were constrained by America being willing to fuck up whoever used them first.
China has no such constraints when it faces conventional annihilation.
>>58235108
You assumed I was saying something I did not. That's simply being a faggot and is an argumentative flaw.
You always act like you know more than everyone else on here, but you don't.
P.s. Britain fell $300 billion further behind Germany in the IMF report.
>>58235160
Why would they? Why fight the entire PLA over some mountains? Why risk the far superior Chinese nuclear response?
China has zero reason to fuck with India if it comes to facing America in the Pacific.
Also, don't forget your muslim brothers to the west.
>>58234467
But railguns are real right? Please tell me we have insane railguns.
>>58235857
Yanks actually do, yes. They're still in development but they're planning on slapping them on new corvettes or something.
>>58235364
RAND agrees with me.
I'll look at that book.
But I still find any single source suspicious. Oppenheimer himself claimed that MAD would come into effect with China. This whole discussion is meaningless.
China's government would sooner shoot 10,000 Chinese before it would let a live-fire incident with Japan/US escalate.
>>58235447
You seem to have nothing to add but an ad hominem.
Just because I use facts doesn't mean I'm Chinese.
>>58235857
Kind of.
They are looking more and more like a dead-end though. Kind of like EMALS.
Stealth has paid off greatly though.
>>58235843
>>58235843
>You assumed I was saying something I did not. That's simply being a faggot and is an argumentative flaw.
Certainly did not.
>You always act like you know more than everyone else on here, but you don't.
What? Fuck off with your gay roleplaying, I am not the embodiment of Britain, neither have I discussed this issue before with you.
And I'm referring you to the threads, because I cannot correct your own thinking. I certainly don't know enough to do that. However, I know enough to know when something is wrong hence, why I said for you to see what a verified expert has to say.
>P.s. Britain fell $300 billion further behind Germany in the IMF report.
Not even relevant.
>>58234455
>Oil is up to $45 today.
That's still a low price, we need it to be kept at 60$/barrel at least to sustain economic growth and well-balanced budget.
>Oil went from 25% of GDP in 2013 to 18% in 2015
Our economy is still heavily dependent on it. Mineral resources (mostly oil and gas) still make ~70% of our exports in foreign trade.
>I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
You just don't see the situation from inside of Russia. It's not catastrophic yet, but still very harsh, much worse than it was in 2008-2009.
>>58234557
>Can the majority of their nukes even hit the US?
No, only DF-31A missiles can, but they have less than 50 of them.
>>58234656
>Russia is more likely to side with Europe/US to counter China, than China is to side against Russia.
I see no reason why would we do that except for a real threat of Chinese aggression against Russia. But i doubt they'd act so thoughtlessly, Chinese leaders are not our friends, but they aren't prone to doing things like that either.
>I honestly don't see your alliance lasting
Neither do i.
>>58236041
Can I have the source for the RAND report or paper? I'd actually like to read it (not just for PROOFS sake).
The book sits on OPpenheimer's recommend reading list, I believe. So take that as you will.
>>58235289
>scared all the euros back into our camp
They never left it at first place.
>>58234940
>The last 5 years their ICBM's rose to 550+. MIRV equipped.
Nonsense. Even we have less than 550 deployed ICBMs currently.
>>58236392
You sounded like the one brit Economics guy I argue with non-stop. He's cool but hardheaded like me.
Apologies. Care to enligten me on nuclear doctrine? I'm not even sure where we disagree now.
>>58236495
The break even budget point fell to $63 this year and $50 next year according to JP Morgan. GDP expands at $40-$45. If oil rises to $60 your GDP will grow 2-3%.
And Russia's exports are only 15% of the economy.
Russia's GDP in 2009 fell 10%.
2015 it fell 3.8% and 2016 probably .5%.
The reason it feels worse is that in 2008-2009 Russia's government defended the ruble with $200 billion in foreign reserves, and spent $80 billion in a stimulus package.
This time around they cut spending and removed the ruble/dollar peg. So the citizens have been hit harder. The citizens pay this time. Not the government.
The good thing is that the rebound will feel a lot better. I'm sure the ruble appreciating 25% has been nice.
>>58236495
More than the DF-31 can hit the US. And they have 50-100.
They are MIRV equipped btw.
I see China and Russia signing an economic alliance in a year or so. There's already been talk in DC of it.
>>58236796
I meant the warheads on the ICBM's. Apologies.
>>58236530
http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP66419.html
>>58236848
Heh, where do you argue with him typically?
And no problem.
Much like economics, nuclear doctrine is very messy and full of things that literally make no sense until explained fully.
Again my recommendation is to either start a nuclear weapon thread on /k/, lurk the archives or read these books.
Read threads with contain the tripfag "OPpenheimer"
http://desustorage.org/k/search/text/Oppenheimer/
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
>>58235556
>The Chinese have nothing to gain from a weak Russia.
Actually they do. Weak, poor and isolated from the rest of the world Russia with no economy except of resource extraction would be the best scenario for them.
>Russia denying China would just be stupid. It isolates Russia even more, so Putin has chosen to align with China.
Putin did it just because he had no choice. Otherwise Russia would turn into a pariah state like North Korea.
>>58232159
Yes they are what part of Japan isn't?
They are a liberal democracy plain and simple
>>58237245
Economy threads.
Either he or I will make the new IMF thread soon enough. It'll be fun.
Thanks for the sources. I know Opp. I've been on /k/ since 2013.
I disagree with him on many areas though. But it is nice to hear a voice of reason and sources on jingoist /k/.
>>58237339
No. A weak Russia leads to a Russia that is much more likely to oppose China. A weak, nuclear armed Russia is bad. Why do you think Chinese state banks are lending so much to Russia and buying so many more goods?
>Putin did it just because he had no choice. Otherwise Russia would turn into a pariah state like North Korea.
Russia still has a number of allies. And many Westerners including I appreciate Russia's actions. No. Pariah state is bullshit. Nuclear powers can't be pariah states.
>>58230483
the best side, the spectator one
Japan duh.
The coming war is going to be all about the sensor-shooter cycles with networked battle management, and it's going to be fucking awesome.
>>58237735
Japan is not a liberal democracy. It is neither free, liberal (not the American term), or a true democracy.
I am Japanese and know this to be true. America is more of a free liberal democracy than Japan.
The UK and Nordic nations are the nations I'd describe as liberal democracies. No others.
I don't think the UK would defend Japan militarily. Japan is a long way from the UK. Actually, the other side of the world.
It'd take the UK three months to get a semi-functional force to Australia, and I'd doubt it'd matter.
Your point that we'd see a buildup is true. But buildups have happened before without a UK response fleet. Second. The first Elizabeth won't be ready till 2017-2018.
>>58233513
>The UK has way more vested interest with China. If you didn't notice last year.
So you didn't notice the new Anglo-Japanese defence agreement? Don't try and sound clever when you're really quite dumb. The other poster is right, we do have interests in the region, although whether we become involved depends very much on the specifics, the actors and the dates.
>>58230813
>Looking at the numbers alone like this can lead you to the wrong conclusion. Almost globalfirepower tier.
True. For example in WW2 the Chinese greatly outnumbered the Japanese, but numbers were literally the only thing the Chinese had on their side.
>But I'll say Japan, since because they will certainly have the backing of the international community.
Pfffh, who cares? Japan is little more than an American aircraft carrier, that alone wins them the war. The country quite literally has no foreign policy other than what America dictates.
>>58238092
Liberal democracy is for cucks. Japan has the best kind of system, it permits freedom but not to excess.
Too much freedom has created the current problem in Europe, which is collapsing under Muslims, or the dysfunctional US political system.
>>58237986
>Canada
What would Canada do? Surrender?
>>58238092
>Japan is a long way from the UK. Actually, the other side of the world.
We keep military bases on the other side of the world for a reason. They're not for decoration.
When typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines, a British aircraft carrier and destroyer arrived on the scene quickly to help with humanitarian operations. The Philippines. On the other side of the world. How you think big British capital ships got there so fast? They were ALREADY in the area.
>>58238308
>it permits freedom but not to excess
>you can be free but only in our terms
>implying that's freedom
>>58238131
I had noticed that. I read TE a little too much.
The Chinese UK economic interests far outweigh that.
>>58238590
>A dirty podemos bastard tries to spew anarchist drivel
>>58235199
Yeah but that was because once those missiles launched, they could not be intercepted. They were too close to US shores and would certainly have resulted in megadeaths.
As for MAD during the missile crisis, the USSR was already capable hitting the US without Cuba, those missiles could be intercepted however
>>58238204
The Chinese were in a civil war and were literally fighting half the time with spears.
It's different in 2016.
>>58238898
>freedom is bad
ok
>>58239065
Getting raped by Muslims is worse, but that is something you have accepted long ago
>>58239012
>It's different in 2016.
I spent some time in rural china a few years back and my hotel room overlooked a military barracks. The men were training with staves instead of guns.
>>58238898
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
>>58238353
And the Elizabeth wont
>>58238832
The China/UK relationship is more complex than that. Yes the UK is trying to get closer to China and form economic links, e.g. AIIB membership and Renminbi trading in London. At the same time there's a fierce argument going on between the UK and China over Hong Kong issues, and the UK recently angered China (the Chinese publicly said they were pissed off) by insisting some international agreement about South China Sea not being a Chinese lake should be respected.
So, you should appreciate that you're dumbing this down regardless of how much TE you read.
Neither Japan nor China are the most important partners in the world for Britain, but the UK is trying get closer to Japan as well. The Japanese got prominent mentions in SDSR 2015. There are very strong economic links between the two countries - Hitachi recently moved its GLOBAL railway business from Japan to Britain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26657455
The UK nearly bought Japanese MPAs instead of Boeing P-8s and closer defence links are planned.
This is far, far more involved than you are trying to implying with your one-dimensional UK-China economic relations argument
>>58239109
relax, every country is not Sweden
>>58239065
>anarchocucks getting enslaved by non-cucked warmongers
>freedom
>>58231289
Exactly how long do you think it would take the US Navy to have forces deployed to Japan's immediate vicinity?
>>58230483
anime
>>58238942
ICBM's practically cannot be intercepted today.
>>58238092
Under your definition of free or democracy Japan certainly fits, under quantitative measure it is certainly a democracy
> http://www.yabiladi.com/img/content/EIU-Democracy-Index-2015.pdf
Japan lacks in political participation however this is not always indicative of the state of the democracy and at least imo a lower importance category.
It is also under such measures well performing in being free.
> http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
> http://www.freetheworld.com/
> https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-press
In terms of literature I'm honestly not familiar with any that really contests this notion? There is a wealth though that makes that assumption so maybe you have completely undermined all of this work under this idea.
>>58239482
>buzzwords
not gonna fall in that bait
>>58239145
That's normal
You don't train with full guns durin exercises.
>>58239400
I'm one dimensional because I am on 4chan
>>58239373
>And the Elizabeth wont
In my first post ITT I said British involved depends on specific included the dates. OP says a "future" conflict. You are making the assumption "future" means tomorrow. It could be a number of years ahead. Britain's power projection ability is severely limited right now, but by 2020 a formidable amount of capability will be coming online
Also stop calling it "the Elizabeth", that's really annoying
>>58239514
Pacific fleet would need 2 weeks to get a CBG over. Excluding the deployed CBG in Japan of course.
>>58239605
Japan is not a liberal democracy. I don't care what these firms have to say. I lived there for 26 years of my life.
>>58239643
said the guy whose whole ideology is based on buzzwords
>>58239400
I only just noticed this but it's a pretty big deal, in that picture, first sentence of 5.72
Japan is called "our closest security partner in Asia"
That's stronger language than I was expecting
General question.
If we had (or anyone really) had secretly developed highly effective anti-missile defenses, would it be in our interests to publicize it, or keep it a pocket ace?
>>58240103
you're assuming a lot of things though
when did I say any of them?
>>58239989
>anecdotal evidence
>>58235843
>Why would they? Why fight the entire PLA over some mountains?
yeah and the entire PLA won't be spread thin in this scenario fighting the Japanese , RoC and Vietnamese and the whatever Western coalition forms around the US at all.
>China has zero reason to fuck with India if it comes to facing America in the Pacific.
yeah that is exactly why PLAN SSNs have been trespassing in our waters.
>Also, don't forget your muslim brothers to the west.
yeah the people we've defeated about 4 out of 4 times in the wars we've fought against them, liberated half their country and made a pro India separate nation state out of it called bangladesh.
We have a ridiculous superiority in numbers against the pakis.
granted we won't be able to win a war against a Paki+PRC nexus because of our Airforce lacking numbers to tackle both at the same time but thats due to change by 2022-25.
My point is you are discounting India's involvement far too much, we just can't let PRC bloat its sphere of influence further which is exactly where we stand together with the USA.
>>58239865
You sound autistic.
>>58240131
Publicize it
Depends on country
>>58240179
I don't care.
>>58239865
SOON
>>58240234
He's not wrong, though and damn me for not thinking of pulling out the SDSR when talking about Japan early in the thread.
>>58239400
This is true, Japan is one of the most important MNNA and as threats to it and SK are perceived to increase balances will be taken.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-closer-defence-ties-with-japan
In light of the EU and French interests it is very important for the UK how this goes, the French are certainly less interested.
http://www.mod.go.jp/e/pressconf/2015/03/150314a.html
Correspondence like this can be telling of how things are going to go.
>>58240325
>>58239989
Okay, so all quantitative studies and an almost complete consensus over the last 50 or more years of political commentators, governments and scientists are wrong because of your feels, disregarded
>>58240207
The PLA ground force would have practically nothing to do. Vietnam would never get involved because it guarantees defeat for them.
It would be India versus 90% of the PLA ground force.
>our waters
HAHAHAHAHhahahah Sri Lanka is not Your Waters.
>yeah the people we've defeated about 4 out of 4 times in the wars we've fought against them, liberated half their country and made a pro India separate nation state out of it called bangladesh.
>We have a ridiculous superiority in numbers against the pakis.
This delusion is amazing. Enjoy your nuclear response.
Why does Pakistan exist with such Indian superiority?
>granted we won't be able to win a war against a Paki+PRC nexus because of our Airforce lacking numbers to tackle both at the same time but thats due to change by 2022-25.
2025? HHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA your airforce is trash and will still be trash then. It's pathetic in nunbers and capability.
>My point is you are discounting India's involvement far too much, we just can't let PRC bloat its sphere of influence further which is exactly where we stand together with the USA.
Your government would be asking for a fight with most of the PLA ground force and nuclear weapons. The Chinese have superior nuclear forces.
Not to mention the Indian forces are concentrated in Western China. The war there would be meaningless.
I believe that India will essentially sit it out. All historical information and sources point to this. Meaningful war just won't happen between large nuclear powers.
>>58230483
Cheer up little buddy! You can just side with whoever we do!
>>58240602
If you can't separate personal opinion from what the powers that be say, you're an idiot.
My ancedotal evidence never proved them wrong. I never claimed so.
>>58240234
Good reply. Maybe I sound autistic but it's better than being wrong and not understanding the issues.
At the end of the day, the new British carriers WILL be ready in the future therefore it's fair to include them in this discussion. Of course, air power could be completely irrelevant to a conflict in the South China Sea, it totally depends on the conflict. If I was Japan and my British allies were offering help, I would want the British ASW frigates more than anything else. I can launch air power from Japan, the Americans have more powerful aircraft carriers, but British ASW capability is world class.
>>58240416
>In light of the EU and French interests it is very important for the UK how this goes, the French are certainly less interested.
The French are expending most of their effort on Africa and the Middle East, they don't have much of a presence in the Asia-Pacific. In addition to military facilities in Singapore and Brunei, and friendly relations with ex-colonies, we have very close bonds in the business world that tie the UK to the region. The best examples are in the financial sector: HSBC, Standard Chartered and the like. Those networks that join Britain to the Far East started growing hundreds of years ago and never went away
>>58240416
Btw thanks for the press conference minutes. Had a quick read, interesting
>>58231485
I don't think they are armed with anything. They are pretty much just targets.
Canada's Military is filled with people who don't know their left from their right. the CAF would be likely to hurt themselves or allies then the enemy. No training, no money, no proper equipment. The fucking liberals won this round.
Also, private Canadian security is possibly the best in the world. Bruce power plant in Ontario that has quality above the SEALs. Check it, nigs.... Now, I don't know if they are Canadian or not. Whatever. Our politicians aren't as retarded as Australian's politics BUT the people? well.... I am not proud about how willingly ignorant much of the populace is. Referring to Alberta and Quebec. Worst provinces ever.
>>58240800
The British carriers would not be anywhere near Japan. They would be permanently near the UK.
The anon's argument is simply wrong.
Japan and the UK do not have a military alliance. Why would the public want to enter WW3 in a place half the world away?
What would be the motivation? NATO doesn't apply.
If it does reply, I doubt it will be meaningful.
>>58240649
>Defending china like a slave defends his master
t. paki
>>58240649
>>58240207
I sound like an ass. Apologies. I stick by my points though.
>>58241160
>Japan and the UK do not have a military alliance.
But we do.
>They would be permanently near the UK.
Again, not true.
We're literally building up to being able to run two CBGs at the same time.
>Why would the public want to enter WW3 in a place half the world away?
We have our own interests and commitments in the region. Much like the US.
>>58241185
t. Ad hominem
There are like zero pakis in America. UK would be the one to be suspicious of.
I'm just an edgy poster from /k/.
>>58241305
Source?
Everything I've read says 1 on deployment and 1 in repairs/training. I doubt they'd leave the UK island without a deployed carrier.
>We have our own interests and commitments in the region. Much like the US.
Yeah and the UK barely approved actions against ISIS after 2 years. The parliament denied Syria intervention in 2013.
I don't think they'd allow a Japan intervention based upon that.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/epgCHiY.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>58241160
>The British carriers would not be anywhere near Japan. They would be permanently near the UK.
No, they wouldn't. HMS Jufair, the Royal Navy's new base in Bahrain, will be able to hold and service the new British carriers. Why? So the Navy can quickly project air power into the Indian Ocean.
We don't need to keep two on deployment in order to have one ready in the Indian Ocean.
>>58241493
>I doubt they'd leave the UK island without a deployed carrier.
Why the fuck does the UK need an aircraft carrier stationed here? The carrier is a tool for power PROJECTION. Not home island protection. We have something called the RAF for that job.
>Yeah and the UK barely approved actions against ISIS after 2 years.
Not true. You're talking about the extension of operations from Iraq into Syria. The UK was striking ISIS very early on.
>vessels
what, chink fishing trawlers vs gook "helicopter carriers"?
top lel
>>58241493
>Source?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf
Or >>58239400 extract.
If in a time of crisis, you can bet your bloody arse that both carriers will be up and ready.
>Yeah and the UK barely approved actions against ISIS after 2 years. The parliament denied Syria intervention in 2013. I don't think they'd allow a Japan intervention based upon that.
This is totally *not* the same thing and if you think it is, you are literally retarded.
I think you don't *get* how serious and major a conflict in the pacific region would be.
>>58241493
The public mind over intervention in middle-east is still tainted from the last decade. An attack on Japan by China is so out-there imo it would be like 1939 or something.
To all britbongs: former Defence Secretary Liam Fox MP will be Question Time tonight.
>>58242201
He only talks about Brexit these days
I don't think a major conflict is coming as the Chinese know Japan has the whole western world's backing. I think both we and Australia would "Urge caution" and do our best to avoid a war with our biggest trading partner, but if push came to shove and the Americans get involved then of course we would side with our real ally over China.
>>58232159
I think you underestimate your ability to carry out maneuver warfare. No other nation on this earth is capable of complete and utter shock and awe.
