BaronIveagh wrote:

Ketara wrote:
The US will never pick a fight with a power capable of fighting back that does not attack them directly first.

That's not hard for US politicians to manufacture though. Remember the Maine?

To this day it is unknown what happened to the Maine. It was either an accident that the Media(not politicians) ran with and incited the war, or it was a deliberate act of sabotage.

You think the Carrier Fleet Commander going to listen to a politician(s) to expose his fleet to an attack by chinese. For that to happen the Carrier needs to provoke them. Not going to happen. US military cannot handle a war China at its current strength.

Jihadin wrote:You think the Carrier Fleet Commander going to listen to a politician(s) to expose his fleet to an attack by chinese. For that to happen the Carrier needs to provoke them. Not going to happen. US military cannot handle a war China at its current strength.

You don't need to order them to do it, you just need to withhold intelligence. Hell, do you think Pearl would have been enjoying a lazy Sunday morning if Washington had shared intelligence that they thought that Japan was about to declare war?


Besides which, the general theory floating around is that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would start off with airstrikes on US bases within the 'first island chain' which would include every base in Japan, the Philippines and South Korea to delay any US intervention.

The comparison to the Maine is very apt, actually. At the time, ambitious Republicans were quick at hopping on the bandwagon, including the ambitious Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt. What do you think people like Fox News would make of several thousand dead American service personnel? Hell, every media organization would be screaming about it.

I think that if the US had solid intelligence that such an attack were in the works, they would have little other choice but to attack preemptively.

Your not going to run for political office or something in that nature anytime soon are you Baron?

Jihadin wrote:Your not going to run for political office or something in that nature anytime soon are you Baron?

I actually won an election in the US once. Granted, it was only for local office.


I knew a merc who cheated on his wife, gambled, and smoked and drank enough by himself to fill a bar. He once staked a mans balls to a table to get a bunch of villagers to talk.

He had more morals then the average politician I had to deal with. Every time I shook hands with one, I got the same feeling you get after two or three weeks in the desert heat without a bath. You know the one. Anyway, I found that it was not to my taste and resigned half way through my term when it became clear that no amount of effort on my part would clean things up. The only thing that I can think of that would clean up US politics based on my experience is a Zhukov Zippo.

Jihadin wrote:

an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.

Its not our (US) area to begin with. If China rolls in and literally claims it by flexing its military strength the US politicians are going to scream loud and clear because its a "no no" and thats pretty much it.

Exactly. Will to fight. The only game in town. Casualties are irrelevant.

You think we will suddenly have it if China bullies its neighbours!? You think Joe Public is suddenly going to be happy to see thousands of our young men get fragged because of that?

Sure we will kick and scream, just like the toothless UN always does. We will bitch and whine and say how disgraceful it is, but commit troops? and risk 20,000 American/British troops winding up in body bags?

No chance. It will be fingers in the ears time, and frankly.. I think its the right choice. I definitely support the more isolationist Americans. If it doesn't directly affect us in a noticeably and overwhelmingly negative way, do you think its worth tens of thousands of our young men getting brassed up?

Its bloody obvious, did we kick off with the Germans when they annexed Austria in March '38?

Nope. It took plenty more gak before we had the will for a scrap.

We would no doubt gain the will to fight if they started barnstorming across Europe, but as I said in my initial point, they wont, we live in the real world, not Bizzaro world, so why talk about things that ain't going to happen?

The Chinese might take the piss out of their neighbours, but unless its a real real gak storm, we wont do jack gak, because we don't like seeing teenagers get their faces blown apart.

mattyrm wrote:

Its bloody obvious, did we kick off with the Germans when they annexed Austria in March '38?

Nope. It took plenty more gak before we had the will for a scrap.

We would no doubt gain the will to fight if they started barnstorming across Europe, but as I said in my initial point, they wont, we live in the real world, not Bizzaro world, so why talk about things that ain't going to happen?

The Chinese might take the piss out of their neighbours, but unless its a real real gak storm, we wont do jack gak, because we don't like seeing teenagers get their faces blown apart.

Historically, all they have to do is kill a significant number of US citizens for the US to get pissed. No one in the US gives a gak about other countries. But sink a cruise liner full of US citizens? Blow up an office building? Attack a overseas military base and kill a lot of sailors and GIs? Those work pretty well if spun right.

Give US civilians a real threat from a clear enemy, with an actual attack, and they do get behind it. Why? Revenge is a concept that Americans get behind and understand.

BaronIveagh wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Its bloody obvious, did we kick off with the Germans when they annexed Austria in March '38?

Nope. It took plenty more gak before we had the will for a scrap.

We would no doubt gain the will to fight if they started barnstorming across Europe, but as I said in my initial point, they wont, we live in the real world, not Bizzaro world, so why talk about things that ain't going to happen?

The Chinese might take the piss out of their neighbours, but unless its a real real gak storm, we wont do jack gak, because we don't like seeing teenagers get their faces blown apart.

Historically, all they have to do is kill a significant number of US citizens for the US to get pissed. No one in the US gives a gak about other countries. But sink a cruise liner full of US citizens? Blow up an office building? Attack a overseas military base and kill a lot of sailors and GIs? Those work pretty well if spun right.

Give US civilians a real threat from a clear enemy, with an actual attack, and they do get behind it. Why? Revenge is a concept that Americans get behind and understand.

Obviously I don't disagree with you, but again, its not relevant because we are talking about us getting involved in a proper war because of China bullying their neighbours, in the real world, that's what's going to happen.

Sure we can invent reasons why we could develop the political will to see a war through. All sorts of things that would get us all pissed, a Chinese general blowing up JFK airport/knocking down the Empire State building/rape the Queen on TV or what have you, but what I'm saying is that in the real world, we wont win a war with the Chinese because none of that stuff will actually happen.

They will bully their neighbours, and treat us as a minor annoyance by generally ignoring us, and we will sit there and take it, because China fething with its neighbours a bit wont give our countrymen the stomach for a war.

mattyrm wrote:
Obviously I don't disagree with you, but again, its not relevant because we are talking about us getting involved in a proper war because of China bullying their neighbours, in the real world, that's what's going to happen.

...Actually there's a good chance that, at least in the case of Taiwan, they would, in fact, kill a large number of US servicemen as part of their first strike. To eliminate Taiwan, they would have to separate it from it's allies, and that includes the US and Japan. US assets on Okinawa, Luzon, and anything else inside the 'first island chain' would have to be neutralized. That's more then a division.

Historically, all they have to do is kill a significant number of US citizens for the US to get pissed. No one in the US gives a gak about other countries. But sink a cruise liner full of US citizens? Blow up an office building? Attack a overseas military base and kill a lot of sailors and GIs? Those work pretty well if spun right.

9/11. Everyone banded together and wanted someone/country/organization to pay the price. After ten years look where we are at. US general population will not support a war to the end. Obama will not go to war with China. Obama will not go to war with Russia if they send troops to Syria. Its not in the US to go to war over something that has no stakes in it for us

Jihadin wrote:9/11. Everyone banded together and wanted someone/country/organization to pay the price. After ten years look where we are at. US general population will not support a war to the end. Obama will not go to war with China. Obama will not go to war with Russia if they send troops to Syria. Its not in the US to go to war over something that has no stakes in it for us

Well, I think the war in Iraq may have had something to do with that. If Bush has focused on Afghanistan instead of allowing the whole thing to be diluted, you'd see more support.

As far as Obama, etc: No idea. Like all politicians, he blows with the wind.