Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

The carrier will usually be the center of a CBG. It's surrounded multiple ships carrying multiple SeaRAMs.

I'm aware of that. I was talking about a LOT of missiles.

 

[delirium]

I know of the SeaRAM. But I'm not going to assume, like you are, that it can, or will be able to, take out whatever China throws at it. Unless you can make the case?

It would be reverse-posturing then. And to what end?

No, if the capabilities of that missile are true, SeaRAM won't be able to defend against it; but there's no way that thing will be operational soon. It'll likely be going up against the next-gen version which will probably be able to (probably some railgun point defense). The US Navy has some really interesting weapon systems in development.

-- LOL this is serious Tom Clancy technophilia in action. :lol

-- I used to think like you before I was actually in the military and saw how things worked.

Not going to assume I know everything but we do know the US has several weapon platforms that it hasn't reveal to the general public yet.

 

[Spire]

Nothing more frightening than a big dong coming at you with no way to deter it from getting too close!

America new defense system: "Just tell him you have a headache."

 

[fortified_concept]

I suppose I edited my post after you'd already started to reply? Mind replying to what I added?

And no one's denying how the military-industrial complex works. But you can't just throw the concept around recklessly to dismiss any truths otherwise.

You're talking about balance. There's no balance right now. China could be spending billions for years and still not match the US arsenal even if the US doesn't spend a penny.

And again the conventional war between two superpowers is a pretty ridiculous and unlikely scenario. Even if there was a conventional war, tell me, would there be a winner and a loser that had to surrender? Why would the loser surrender before using nuclear weapons? Conventional war between two nuclear powers is illogical.

The only sane scenario would be if there was a small scale conflict. Well guess what, there are no winners and losers in that scenario noone would be stopped and noone would lose dominance so it doesn't fucking matter except for dick measuring purposes between idiotic nationalists. The matter would be resolved through diplomatic means and with the threat of a full scale nuclear war always hanging above the heads of the diplomats and politicians. Again nuclear weapons would be the determining factor. So it doesn't. fucking. matter.

You're only defending fearmongering used to make the war industry wealthier.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

You're talking about balance. There's no balance right now. China could be spending billions for years and still not match the US arsenal even if the US doesn't spend a penny.

And again the conventional war between two superpowers is a pretty ridiculous and unlikely scenario. Even if there was a conventional war, tell me, would there be a winner and a loser that had to surrender? Why would the loser surrender before using nuclear weapons? Conventional war between two nuclear powers is illogical.

The only sane scenario would be if there was a small scale conflict. Well guess what, there are no winners and losers in that scenario noone would be stopped and noone would lose dominance so it doesn't fucking matter except for dick measuring purposes between idiotic nationalists. The matter would be resolved through diplomatic means and with the threat of a full scale nuclear war always hanging above the heads of the diplomats and politicians. Again nuclear weapons would be the determining factor. So it doesn't. fucking. matter.

You're only defending fearmongering used to make the war industry wealthier.

There is also the scenario of proxy wars, which happened several times.

 

[fortified_concept]

There is also the scenario of proxy wars, which happened several times.

They don't use their best weapons for proxy wars -not even close- for many reasons. First of all, the enemy one of the superpowers is directly fighting isn't trusted enough from the other superpower to receive their latest weapons, second, the war is usually unconventional guerrilla warfare, and third, they're not gonna give away for free their most sophisticated weapons and the country in war certainly doesn't have the money to buy them. The subject of this thread is direct conventional war between two superpowers. At least that's what the article and the war enthusiasts are talking about in this thread.

 

[Socreges]

You're talking about balance. There's no balance right now. China could be spending billions for years and still not match the US arsenal even if the US doesn't spend a penny.

I'm not talking about equality. I'm talking about balance. Now read what I said again. Maybe go read a few journals on political science, too, when you've got some free time.

You're only defending fearmongering used to make the war industry wealthier.

No, but I do feel I have a richer and more complex understanding of international relations than you.

That's not to say that you don't know plenty on your own. But you should spend less energy trying to impress GAF with dramatic, hyperbolic forms of speech and more trying to actually comprehend what we're saying.

 

[Jenov]

This was an interesting thread until the last page or so..

 

[fortified_concept]

I'm not talking about equality. I'm talking about balance. Now read what I said again. Maybe go read a few journals on political science, too, when you've got some free time.

No, but I do feel I have a richer and more complex understanding of international relations than you.

That's not to say that you don't know plenty on your own. But you should spend less energy trying to impress GAF with dramatic, hyperbolic forms of speech and more trying to actually comprehend what we're saying.

I don't understand how there's "balance" when one superpower has multiple times more weapons than the other. Maybe you mean preservation of the status quo which has nothing to do with balance.

Your more "complex understanding of international relations" failed to explain to me how on earth there could be a conventional war between superpowers that matters. My hyperbolic forms of speech can be easily explained when you consider my seething hate for nationalism and my condescension for these ridiculous war scenarios ("MY PLANE IS BETTER THAN YOUR PLANE AND I HAVE A HUNDRED OF THEM!") which is practically nationalists jacking each other off while comparing their dicks with the other side.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Wait, you're saying that in a conventional war they will resort to nukes, if they're losing? So that way no one wins? OK. :lol

 

[Tzeentch]

So wait, the US option against this glorified SSBM being used are mysterious secret weapons - probably hidden at Groom Lake no doubt - and our overwhelming spending advantage against the nation that could detonate the US budget at the drop of a hat.

I've seen it all :lol

 

[Dresden]

Hopefully this means we stop making those goddamned carriers. They're too expensive and are obsolete for the most part.

Need more Void Rays.

 

[Socreges]

I don't understand how there's "balance" when one superpower has multiple times more weapons than the other. Maybe you mean preservation of the status quo which has nothing to do with balance.

I mean balance in terms of stability. The word has a particular meaning within the context of what I said:

"And really, if you're not prepared for conventional warfare with rival superpowers and instead rely on an arsenal of nuclear weapons, that is incredibly destabilizing. The balance is important and has to be kept, regardless of the existence of nuclear weapons."

Nuclear weapons alone don't serve as a credible deterrent. They are effective, but they are also exceptional in that their employment is so extreme as to have its own bifurcated category (conventional vs. unconventional). There's also the prospect of mutually assured destruction or something close to it. So relying on a force whose use is so unthinkable is highly unrealistic and destabilizing. The U.S. needs the capabilities and ambiguity that they've got now. That means having a credible conventional deterrent and the capabilities to respond as they wish in a crisis without resorting to nuclear weapons. As I said earlier in the thread, these situations likely won't play themselves out. Whatever does happen between China and the U.S. in the future, if anything, is difficult to know. But conventional forces will continue to be important and developments such as this do potentially affect little things such as how the U.S. is able to operate in East Asia. Welcome to the anarchic international order.

 

[fortified_concept]

Wait, you're saying that in a conventional war they will resort to nukes, if they're losing? So that way no one wins? OK. :lol

No, they would surrender instead to the other superpower. :lol Because if there's something the US-USSR cold war has proved to us was that if there's enough animosity between the two sides that a potential war is possible neither power will be willing to bring their nuclear arsenal to the table. Like in the Cuban missile crisis for example. What a fucking joke, I can't believe I'm playing your game by even discussing these juvenile scenarios.

I mean balance in terms of stability. The word has a particular meaning within the context of what I said:

"And really, if you're not prepared for conventional warfare with rival superpowers and instead rely on an arsenal of nuclear weapons, that is incredibly destabilizing. The balance is important and has to be kept, regardless of the existence of nuclear weapons."

Nuclear weapons alone don't serve as a credible deterrent. They are effective, but they are also exceptional in that their employment is so extreme as to have its own bifurcated category (conventional vs. unconventional). There's also the prospect of mutually assured destruction or something close to it. So relying on a force whose use is so unthinkable is highly unrealistic and destabilizing. The U.S. needs the capabilities and ambiguity that they've got now. That means having a credible conventional deterrent and the capabilities to respond as they wish in a crisis without resorting to nuclear weapons. As I said earlier in the thread, these situations likely won't play themselves out. Whatever does happen between China and the U.S. in the future, if anything, is difficult to know. But conventional forces will continue to be important and developments such as this do potentially affect little things such as how the U.S. is able to operate in East Asia. Welcome to the anarchic international order.

Your posts are starting to look like evasion to me. You keep ignoring the fact that US arsenal is many times bigger than China's yet you keep talking about balance and stability as if stability could only be kept if USA is the undisputed arms leader of the world which of course is bullshit.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Your posts are starting to look like evasion to me. You keep ignoring the fact that US arsenal is many times bigger than China's yet you keep talking about balance and stability as if stability could only be kept if USA is the undisputed arms leader of the world which of course is bullshit.

He's arguing in favor of Hegemonic Stability Theory, one of many theoretical perspectives within systems analysis and put forth by adherents to realist perspectives of international relations. The HST has been popularized by Robert Keohane.

There are numerous assumptions built into this worldview: key among them that states are unitary and rational actors, that they interact within an anarchic framework, that they have a clearly defined and set list of preferences, that these preferences can be ordered hierarchically, and that states pursue the most efficient means to achieve these goals.

In other words, states will almost always defect from cooperative relationships to seek their selfish ends. Hegemons can act as rule-setters through diplomacy, coersion, etc.

I wouldn't personally agree with most of the above, although it remains somewhat popular amongst scholars from the Cold War era.

 

[Socreges]

Your posts are starting to look like evasion to me. You keep ignoring the fact that US arsenal is many times bigger than China's yet you keep talking about balance and stability as if stability could only be kept if USA is the undisputed arms leader of the world which of course is bullshit.

If I've "ignored" the disparity between the U.S. and China, it's because I don't consider it relevant to this discussion. I'm just further explaining my previous posts since you don't understand what I'm saying. You even started your previous post with "I don't understand". It's important that we understand each other if we're going to invest time debating, no? I get that you think that a war between China and U.S. would certainly lead to nuclear weapons being used (in other words, a limited war/conflict between the two isn't possible). But I don't think you quite get where I'm coming from.

I'll respond to something you said earlier. Maybe that'll help.

And again the conventional war between two superpowers is a pretty ridiculous and unlikely scenario. Even if there was a conventional war, tell me, would there be a winner and a loser that had to surrender? Why would the loser surrender before using nuclear weapons? Conventional war between two nuclear powers is illogical.

Ever heard of a ceasefire? The problem here is that you're describing war in a very simplistic way, as if there needs to be a winner for operations to stop. There can be a limited conflict that does not escalate to total war.

Truth is we don't know if such a war between the U.S. and China would necessarily remain limited or not. But the possibility of such, as well as the importance of deterrence and not relying on nuclear weapons exclusively (as I explained in my previous post), means that such advancements in technology are important. You should find a way to accommodate these ideas in your mental construct of international relations. It's not just about "dickwaving" and "fearmongering".

He's arguing in favor of Hegemonic Stability Theory, one of many theoretical perspectives within systems analysis and put forth by adherents to realist perspectives of international relations. The HST has been popularized by Robert Keohane.

There are numerous assumptions built into this worldview: key among them that states are unitary and rational actors, that they interact within an anarchic framework, that they have a clearly defined and set list of preferences, that these preferences can be ordered hierarchically, and that states pursue the most efficient means to achieve these goals.

In other words, states will almost always defect from cooperative relationships to seek their selfish ends. Hegemons can act as rule-setters through diplomacy, coersion, etc.

I wouldn't personally agree with most of the above, although it remains somewhat popular amongst scholars from the Cold War era.

Actually I didn't argue from HST at all. Don't take fortified's description of my post at face value because he got it wrong.

I'd much sooner subscribe to neoliberal institutionalism, though I'm still a student in many ways and haven't really settled on my ideas concretely. Anyway, my argument was more to contrast nuclear weapons vs. nuclear weapons + conventional weapons in order to highlight the importance of the latter and how developments such as this (China possibly acquiring tech that could destroy super carriers) are important and can't be shrugged aside by pointing at nuclear weapons.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Oh, okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

I was being lazy.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Well I think we all knew that China would eventually re-take the title of worlds #1 super power. Now they have the better economy to boot. Oh well, the USA had a good run.

 

[Salazar]

Well I think we all knew that China would eventually re-take the title of worlds #1 super power. Now they have the better economy to boot. Oh well, the USA had a good run.

'Better' is perhaps hasty. China's situation is unique.

http://robertreich.org/post/722610682/why-chinas-currency-announcement-is-hokum

 

[fortified_concept]

If I've "ignored" the disparity between the U.S. and China, it's because I don't consider it relevant to this discussion. I'm just further explaining my previous posts since you don't understand what I'm saying. You even started your previous post with "I don't understand". It's important that we understand each other if we're going to invest time debating, no? I get that you think that a war between China and U.S. would certainly lead to nuclear weapons being used (in other words, a limited war/conflict between the two isn't possible). But I don't think you quite get where I'm coming from.

I'll respond to something you said earlier. Maybe that'll help.

Ever heard of a ceasefire? The problem here is that you're describing war in a very simplistic way, as if there needs to be a winner for operations to stop. There can be a limited conflict that does not escalate to total war.

Truth is we don't know if such a war between the U.S. and China would necessarily remain limited or not. But the possibility of such, as well as the importance of deterrence and not relying on nuclear weapons exclusively (as I explained in my previous post), means that such advancements in technology are important. You should find a way to accommodate these ideas in your mental construct of international relations. It's not just about "dickwaving" and "fearmongering".

Actually I didn't argue from HST at all. Don't take fortified's description of my post at face value because he got it wrong.

I'd much sooner subscribe to neoliberal institutionalism, though I'm still a student in many ways and haven't really settled on my ideas concretely. Anyway, my argument was more to contrast nuclear weapons vs. nuclear weapons + conventional weapons in order to highlight the importance of the latter and how developments such as this (China possibly acquiring tech that could destroy super carriers) are important and can't be shrugged aside by pointing at nuclear weapons.

You're being purposely abstruse so it's not coincidental people misinterpret your posts and you keep ignoring large parts of my posts. The possibility of a ceasefire has already been considered by me here:

The only sane scenario would be if there was a small scale conflict. Well guess what, there are no winners and losers in that scenario noone would be stopped and noone would lose dominance so it doesn't fucking matter except for dick measuring purposes between idiotic nationalists. The matter would be resolved through diplomatic means and with the threat of a full scale nuclear war always hanging above the heads of the diplomats and politicians. Again nuclear weapons would be the determining factor. So it doesn't. fucking. matter.

 

[MadraptorMan]

Don't we have turret-based missile killing lasers yet? We've been developing the tech for years.

 

[_Xenon_]

I wonder given a little more perspective on your part, versed on the 1980s Japanese expansion, you would be so sure in your claims. Everyone and their mother thought Japan would be the next superpower. True story.

How is it possible to become a superpower without nuclear weapons and have to let a group of foreign army stay on their land? IMO Japan is just like a cash cow for the US. In the good days they got fed well but in the bad days they have to offer some meat for their sugar daddy. Japan will never become a superpower simply because the US force on their land won't allow to.

 

[Tesseract]

How is it possible to become a superpower without nuclear weapons and have to let a group of foreign army stay on their land? IMO Japan is just like a cash cow for the US. In the good days they got fed well but in the bad days they have to offer some meat for their sugar daddy. Japan will never become a superpower simply because the US force on their land won't allow to.

a practical reality that is more dubious than its theoretical counterpart.

the idea is that nuclear weapons are made obsolete in a ha-ha kind of way. the pen is mightier than the sword; the big stone doesn't need sticks.

and i say, for what it's worth, that you're right.

 

[_Xenon_]

a practical reality that is more dubious than its theoretical counterpart.

the idea is that nuclear weapons are made obsolete in a ha-ha kind of way. the pen is mightier than the sword; the big stone doesn't need sticks.

and i say, for what it's worth, that you're right.

IMO nuclear weapon today is just a big bargain chip under the table during important negotiations (such as RMB currency). You won't bring it on the table but you have to have it in one form or another.

Japan simply don't have such a thing and if their sugar daddy tells them "we're gonna raise Yen and fuck you up", they will have no option but to follow.

 

[Sol..]

How is it possible to become a superpower without nuclear weapons and have to let a group of foreign army stay on their land? IMO Japan is just like a cash cow for the US. In the good days they got fed well but in the bad days they have to offer some meat for their sugar daddy. Japan will never become a superpower simply because the US force on their land won't allow to.

They need a wealth of other resources too. all they got is people. old old people.

 

[scorcho]

'Better' is perhaps hasty. China's situation is unique.

http://robertreich.org/post/722610682/why-chinas-currency-announcement-is-hokum

Reich has a tumblr site? wha?

 

[Stahsky]

I misread it as "career killing" and thought "China's producing M. Night Shamalaman's next movie?"

^

career killing sounded so much cooler

 

[Socreges]

You're being purposely abstruse so it's not coincidental people misinterpret your posts and you keep ignoring large parts of my posts.

Who are these "people" that are misinterpreting my posts? It's just you, buddy, and I'm not going to take the blame for that. This is a complex situation that demands complex arguments. Don't get frustrated and start accusing me of things just because you've hit a wall.

And I don't think I've ignored anything important. I've been trying to clarify my own ideas so as to have you understand and end this debate. Everything that you've said is implicitly addressed through me substantiating and explaining what I've said.

The possibility of a ceasefire has already been considered by me here:

I don't think you want us to talk about your ideas. I mean, you've contradicted yourself there. Don't forget where you're coming from:

My point is that in the impossible scenario where war starts the superpowers will obliterate each other using the most efficient weapons they got before the other side uses them which of course are nuclear weapons. Everything else is gun porn for stupid kids being enthusiastic about weapons while the war industry is getting rich stealing the tax payers money.

And thanks for acknowledging that there could be a conventional war between the two countries that wouldn't escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.

I'm out. Been fun.

 

[perfectchaos007]

'Better' is perhaps hasty. China's situation is unique.

http://robertreich.org/post/722610682/why-chinas-currency-announcement-is-hokum

true. They do have some humanitarian issues to work out like 80 work weeks for 10 year old kids for a dollar. But I mean, the US imports not only goods, but also loans from China. I know the US is 9 Trillion dollars in debt, but I wouldn't be suprised if half, or at least a couple trillion, was in debt to China.

 

[Brannon]

Both China and the US have each other by the balls. On one hand, China has carrier-killers, and on the other hand, China has a lot of the US' debt. If you owned a van that was full of people, and the person you owe money to to buy that van and pay those people decided to shoot that van and kill the people, would you pay that man back? Would you even consider it?

 

[Megadragon15]

Both China and the US have each other by the balls. On one hand, China has carrier-killers, and on the other hand, the US has a lot of China's debt. If you owned a van that was full of people, and the person you owe money to to buy that van and pay those people decided to shoot that van and kill the people, would you pay that man back? Would you even consider it?

I thought China owns a lot of the US' debt.

 

[Brannon]

I thought China owns a lot of the US' debt.

Ah yes, worded it wrong. Changed.

 

[fortified_concept]

Who are these "people" that are misinterpreting my posts? It's just you, buddy, and I'm not going to take the blame for that. This is a complex situation that demands complex arguments. Don't get frustrated and start accusing me of things just because you've hit a wall.

And I don't think I've ignored anything important. I've been trying to clarify my own ideas so as to have you understand and end this debate. Everything that you've said is implicitly addressed through me substantiating and explaining what I've said.

I don't think you want us to talk about your ideas. I mean, you've contradicted yourself there. Don't forget where you're coming from:

And thanks for acknowledging that there could be a conventional war between the two countries that wouldn't escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.

I'm out. Been fun.

Your arguments aren't complex they're abstruse. For an entire page I'm trying to get word by word out of you what you mean by balance (which later on you changed to stability) and you're still not being specific enough.

All you do is desperately try to find holes in my arguments instead of replying to my questions that could help the discussion while still being abstruse and ignoring the other parts of my posts. For example, it's quite freaking obvious to every person that knows how to make a proper discussion that I wasn't contradicting myself there. In the first part of my post I was describing the most likely scenario and in the rest of it I just entertaining your argument, trying to find a sane (but improbable) scenario where there's a conflict between two superpowers that doesn't result to nuclear war.

But even in that instance you purposely chose to avoid to reply to my analysis of this scenario which concludes that even in that situation conventional weapons just don't matter and focus on the ridiculous "contradiction" while thanking me that I "acknowledged that there could be a conventional war between the two countries" which completely ignores my conclusion. You must be doing it on purpose or you simply don't know how to argue... or read.