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

I hate to say it but I think this hawkish Chinese Admiral is correct. As the snowflake generation comes of age and moves into positions of power as they did in the last election with the democrat party victory it's becoming obvious to the world that America is becoming weak and ripe for exploitation. Things could get really ugly really fast as foreign powers test our resolve now that this new generation is moving into government.


"What the United States fears the most is taking casualties," said Rear Admiral Lou Yuan, deputy head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, news.com.au reported. He said sinking one carrier would kill 5,000 and sinking two would double that number."
"The Chinese believe that "Americans have gone soft … [they] no longer have an appetite for sacrifice and at the first sign of genuine trouble they will cut and run," Glosserman said.

In his speech, Loui said there were "five cornerstones of the United States" open to exploitation: their military, their money, their talent, their voting system -- and their fear of adversaries, according to the news.com.au report."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/sinki...nsion-in-south-china-sea-says-chinese-admiral

 

I believe one of China's main goals has been the creation of a missile that can do just that.

The actual sinking of a carrier would put us on war footing so unless they can pull off a major false flag that would be a non-starter.

However, us knowing that have a weapon that could do it may be what they are going after.

They could essentially neutralize us with just the threat especially with a democratic president.

 

Sadly, the Chinese are right. The Democrats are more worried about where soldiers can pee than winning a combat engagement. The word combat is a trigger word to them

 

Literally every time an enemy of the United State has thought that, they've been dead wrong. The Japanese thought we wouldn't have the stomach for casualties in 1941, Vietnam thought we wouldn't have the stomach for casualties during Tet, Saddam thought so in 91, Bin Laden thought so in 01. Every single time, they've been dead wrong.

 

Remember congress has to declare war and as congress fills up with snowflakes an action such as the Chinese Admiral suggest may be met in congress with self blame as in we had it coming.

 

This speech was made in 1939 right?

 

He probably needs to think this through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

 

That is debatable and the Supreme Court has never visited the question.

 

Remember the War Powers Act would let the President and DoD act without any authorization or declaration from Congress for up to 60 days.

 

Fair point but long haul would this new snowflake congress support and fund such a war. That's a question a sitting president would have to ask himself before entering into any military engagement and a question any potential adversary would ask themselves as they plotted such a scheme.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but only congress can declare war the way I read the Constitution

 

What the Chinese and many other nations do not realize is that even though its counter intuitive the American people are far more likely to be upset and bring troops home if a small number are killed than if a huge number are killed.

A dozen or so soldiers murdered by insurgents in some third world city is much more likely to prompt outrage and calls to "bring them home" than the killing of 10,000 Americans aboard a couple of carriers by the Chinese.

The incident where a dozen soldiers are killed is likely to be seen as a small, trivial conflict not worth risking human lives. But the sudden deaths of thousands of Americans and the loss of a couple of carriers would be seen as a major threat to the nations security and would be seen as justifying immense levels of response by the United States. The small incident is also easy for Americans to primarily feel the pain of families and loved ones. The huge nature of the loss of two carriers though would make Americans mainly feel united and consolidated behind the military and desire to hit them back.

 

Definitely some sabre rattling occuring here.

 

No nation declares war anymore.

 

60 days is enough time to ensure that the US is deeply involved in a conflict that not supporting it would be functionally impossible.

 

I would certainly hope everything you say is true but when I listen to this new breed of liberals recently elected and realize it took a majority to elect them I have to wonder.

 

Its what "Declare War" actually meant to the founders that is the question.

Back then congress could only appropriate funds or raise troops or pass certain laws if there was an official declaration of war. Its believed by many constitutional scholars that the power to declare war is merely procedural so congress has a greater ability to support the president.

Considering that the constitution expressly gives the president direct command over the troops this would seem to be logical.

 

That is sound logic and historically accurate but I'm wondering if a new day has dawned in America and the snowflake generation would just cut and run.

 

The problem arises in funding. If congress won't fund the troops they have the power to conclude any war the president himself deems necessary. In the end they are the final arbitrator

 

Like big, brave totally-not-a-snowflake Trump wants to do in Syria and Afghanistan?

 

Of course.

And the laws have since changed but early on it was not possible for congress to appropriate any funds unless they first made a declaration of war.

Do you see the issue here?

 

When you have thousands and thousands of US soldiers, sailors, airmen, et al involved in active combat against a major power like China, any Congress that would try to cut funding to the troops would be seen as traitorous.

 

Unfortunate that you can't stay on subject as your raging TDS takes control

 

No, you lost me

 

Trump is in charge, not the dems.