Sinking US aircraft carriers will resolve tension in South China Sea, says Chinese admiral

The lesson of Vietnam for the world is America doesn't have the stomach for a protracted war with heavy casualties and with the snowflake generation transitioning to positions of power in government that perception is magnified. China has always operated on a very long time table to achieve it's goals and I can see them initiating a limited war and being willing to take heavy initial losses in a retaliatory strike with the long term strategy of wearing us down. In Vietnam the north with China's help was content with us having victory after victory and in fact we never lost a major battle but at some point they knew that our casualties would outweigh the battlefield victories with the American public and victory would be relegated to second place behind casualties and deemed to be not worth the price paid in blood and treasure. A country the size of china could implement this same plan in a much larger scale and wear down our resolve relatively quickly.

 

I served in Nam! The lesson from Nam was we should not have been there in the first place. If we should have been there the American Public would have had the support for our effort. Don't compare protecting the straights of malacca shipping lanes with the killing of 10,000 sailors and sinking two carriers. Japan killed 1/4 of that number at Pearl Harbor and you see that result and the anti-military isolationist were much more politically strong that what they are now. America will be giddy again watching a green tinted night vision view of the 3 gorges Dam being blown apart on national TV

 

You have more faith in this snowflake generation and it's globalism-socialism politics than I do. We are not the same people we were in the 40s and have become papmepered, spoiled entitled babies. In the 40s we were a tough and hardy people steeled by the great depression and emboldened by victory in every major war we had fought in. We built dams across mighty rivers and shrugged our shoulders at death tolls related to their construction. Now a simple wall along our border is too challenging and stressful to even contemplate for the snowflakes. Throughout history mighty empires have fallen as each successive generation becomes weaker and more pacifist and the "barbarians to the north" see fruit ripe for the picking. That's what this Chinese general is seeing with us right now.
As for Vietnam I'll not debate wether we should have been there or not in this thread. My point is their tactics of being content with losing every major battle while inflicting as much pain on us as possible worked and China could do the same on a much larger scale. They have no shortage of bodies to count and could sustain heavy losses and not miss a beat.

 

No, the Democrats are more worried about how well their stock portfolio perform with heavy military industrial interest.

 

It's funny when someone else makes such comments and findings towards the United States as it normally happens reversed from the USA to others ...
Undoubtedly, this would naturally lead to a war if happened, at the end of which both atomically annihilate each other on several occasions and in the end the whole planet.

Interesting is also again the blabber because of "Snowflakes" just from the side, which like to let go of such comments to others in the world ... or applaud when someone else from the US does it like this Chines here did. Many of us here in the forum have read all too often about these comments at topics for Russia, Syria and North Korea.
In the past, US people liked to rumble through the world and there was a lot of rediculous noise that nobody could match up with the USA etc.
Slowly it dawns on some of these people that it has not been that way anymore now and since a longer time ... just because the US has been shooting itself since 2003! With the criminal attack on Saddam in 2003 everyone else in the world has been warned and learned the lesson and they started to upgrade and / or modernize their forces much.
Why, because the US was no longer a trustworthy player, and deals with the US have not been worth much anymore. ... and much less since Trump!

But oif course all these evil Snowflakes and evil Democrats guilt ... as usual ... but: Who was in 2003 the US President again until 2008, who caused this counter reaction again, eh?

And instead this blabbering of evil snowflakes have done nothing against ... what would you have done instead to prevent that for exampel China has the power to match up with the USA now?

 

The Chinese Admiral in question made this remark after the congress was taken over by snowflake liberals not after Trump was elected.

 

So you would be grateful if the U.S. pulls out of NATO?

 

Yes, but if they started a nuclear war, how long would they last with the US military using nukes against them?

If they kept it conventional, how long would China last under a total blockade from the world economy? And how heavy would US casualties be from having fighters and bombers sink Chinese shipping?

It looks to me like an easy victory for the US. I advise China to stick to peace.

 

Sinking of a US CVN will mean war with China and the collapse of her economy.
Thus, the Chinese will not sink a US CVN.

 

Don't forget the reduction of the Chinese power and transportation infrastructure.

 

The Reciprocal use of nukes against them, likely against military land targets.

 

They will never do that. It would destroy their economy.

 

Another good reason to impose higher tariffs right now.

 

WW3 started by China could entail use of nuclear weapons without all out nuclear war and that could be started by tactical nukes being used to neutralize our carriers. As soon as an adversary is willing to cross that line carriers become obselete.

 

China thinks long term and if they thought they could outlast us both economically and militarily they might just do so. This admiral senses weakness and that historically is never a good thing when an emerging power sees an old established power that looks to be in decline.

 

Yes ... I will! Why? Because what does the US for the NATO? Aside nuclear umbrella nothing! And these impudent Trump demands with fake news that the evil Europeans have to pay more ... for what please? For you doing nothing in the NATO? Lol...
I want a replacement of NATO with a core of West European members only... maybe with Canada if they really want and don't play the butt lickers of the US anymore...

 

So what? First of all the Admiral was right, because these are the real facts about US strength since 60 years now! Secondly the US lost any respect in world since Bush Jr. and his criminal attack on iraq for what he should be brought same way to a tribunal like the Nazi scum in 1945!

 

We do nothing for NATO? Really? We pay for approx. 72 % of NATO, I'd like to see that number be 0%.

 

Wrong! Like the rest of the world they believe that Americans have gone stupid.
And so have we - in the sense of 'where America goes the UK follows'.

 

Lol ... you really believe this nonsense? O dear ... get the reality:

YOU DO NOT!!!!

The Americans under Trump always point out that they carry 72% of all defense spending in the NATO countries, last year, $ 664 billion; However, the Europeans only 26%, namely 239 billion dollars (2% are Canada). They also complain that they spend 3.6 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, whereas only four European states even reach the target of two percent: England, Poland, Estonia and Greece. From this they conclude that the current burden-sharing is unfair. That's a milkmaid bill, and lie at least!
Lucie Béraud-Sudreau and Nick Childs, of the prestigious London International Institute for Strategic Studies, have provided figures in the Security Times that clearly show that the US is spending its security dollars primarily for its own needs. From their military budget of 664 billion USD, Europe accounts for only 28.2 to 30.2 billion USD - equivalent to 4.2 to 4.5% of the total US military budget!
Take, for example, the costs of the many US bases in the Pacific and in Asia, for example in Japan. Do these costs have anything to do with NATO and Europe? No ... or since when is Japan a member of NATO?
In return, in addition, the US receive bases, muster rooms, communication centers and hospitals in Europe, without them the US could hardly fight their wars in the Middle East ... and these bases are financed by the Europeans too ... or what do you think who is paying the montly electric power bill of the huge Air Base of Ramstein in Germany, eh?

Even with the figure of 2% it is such a thing.
First of all ... Of course, Trump and most of the US media beating on the bad Europeans, of course, did not tell you anything about the 2014 NATO Treaty of Wales from the 2014 Kahr, which the US has signed, and about it Trump supporters are silent ... eh?
According to this contract, all NATO members must only meet the 2% from 2024! Do we have 2019 or do we already have 2024, eh? Of course it was clear that this is not said by Trump, because this info makes him and his ridiculous allegations absurd and him as so often a ridiculous clown!

Secondly, the 2% mark is dependent on economic growth - with the bizarre consequence that the share of military spending falls as gross domestic product increases (which is why Poland and England slipped below two percent in 2016), but it rises in the case of negative growth, which is why the bankrupt Greece in Europe maintains the highest military budget in percentage terms ... but not in euros! The European NATO states spent about three percent more on defense last year than the year before; but because their gross domestic product increased at the same time by 1.8 per cent, the percentage share of the military expenditures decreased.
So a mathematical maid of the milk, which says nothing!

Third ... if the US and the European neighbors would be really happy if Germany with a then defense budget of 62 billion euros becomes Europe's strongest military power is doubtful ... because then we are again the bad Germans who upgrade military heavy with hink on the Nazi past ... as so often done, even by you, if it is time to call the Germans to be the bad boys again!

Fourth, if you look at what the US still has in the armed forces in Europe, it's just ridiculous. The National Guard of Maine is more powerful than what is here even more long-term ... means not just temporary for any action of a few weeks is based in Europe!

Conclusion:
Yes, I'm tired of reading and listening to the American lies and allegations that are not true. I am also tired of being lectured to you all the time, which we do not do wrong ... because you have no right to do so and you should first stop your bad things with America First, before you berate others!
Therefore, I want an end to NATO and out with you Americans from Europe!
This has nothing to do with ingratitude, because we were and are grateful ... but if the benefactor behaves as shamelessly as you, gratitude has its limits!

 

The Japanese once attacked our warships to send a message. They did not expect what the response would be. The Chinese should revisit history before embarking upon this disaterous endeavor.

 

Well ... but you know that the Japs missed to sink the carriers due to be on sea at attack ... and that it was only pure chance and luck that they were missed? And do not forget that it was luck / coincidence that the Japanese did not fly another wave which would then have disrupted the oil storage and shipyard facilities.
Think about if they were sunk too and the third wave would have been done ... no victory at Midway and all this for a longer time, before the new carriers were build ... particularly these of the Essex class!

 

As soon as someone starts a post with "so what" I stop reading and move on.

 

Difference now is tactical nukes. If china took out our entire carrier fleet what would be our recourse? A retaliatory strike on their carrier? What if they make sure it's in port so any attack on it would be an escalation when we use nukes on their territory? China could render our entire navy impotent and force our entire fleet to run for home if they started nuing war ships at sea. That would put us in the akward position of absorbing the strike or escalating to retaliation on China's cities which would lead to all out nuclear war. Good chance we would have some limited response and then sit home and wonder wtf to do.

 

China could also find itself with a retaliatory tactical nuclear strike on land-based naval and missile facilities.
China does not have sufficient strategic nuclear capability to make a full nuclear exchange an option.

Whoever chooses to toss the first nuke does so knowing they may cease to exist.