WWIII : Close as ever

US Carrier Group Heads Towards Taiwan Ahead Of Potential Pelosi Trip After China Warns Of ‘Forceful Response’

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-military-makes-pla…

Note: China and Russia are compadres.

1 Like

The carrier group has a huge offensive capability. It also the largest target in the area if the cork pops. China and Russia are comrades of convenience only and neither will put itself at existential risk to support the other.

Jeff

1 Like

The carrier group has a huge offensive capability.

Only above sea level.

1 Like

China and Russia are comrades of convenience only and neither will put itself at existential risk to support the other.

Jeff,

Your comment provoked a little “out of the box” thinking for me (in regard to what would constitute an existential risk for China, Russia, and the US). Just looking at the 2022 World City Populations makes it clear that China takes a greater risk in siding with Russia against the US than Russia takes in reverse.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities

By nuking Shanghai alone, the US could take out 26 million people in one fell swoop.

One strike hitting Moscow could take out 13 million at once.

It would take far many more direct strikes to take out an equal number of Americans.

Rounding up, the numbers indicate: New York 9 million, Los Angeles 4 million, Chicago 3 million, Washington D.C. 1 million, San Francisco 1 million, Seattle 1 million, Houston 2 million, Philadelphia 2 million, Atlanta 1 million, Dallas 1.5 million, Miami 0.5 million.

New York + LA = 13 million, the same as Moscow.

Total of the above US cities = 26 million, the same as Shanghai.

In the US, a great many people still live disaggregated in “flyover country,” too thinly dispersed to bother with.

Even if Russia or China took out all the major US cities, the US Constitutional “federal/state” division of government in the US ensures that a meaningful part of the US population would survive total war. Each of our 50 states already operates as an independent unit - in fact, farmers and truckers, essential for feeding each of us, are broadly dispersed across the states in rural areas.

China and Russia, on the other hand, have “command and control” centralized governments. It would be virtually impossible for either China or Russia to maintain any form of government if their largest population centers were destroyed. The people across their countries would revert to feudalism or anarchy.

China would recover, of course, since it would be virtually impossible to destroy both Shanghai and Beijing. However, the people would be essentially ungovernable if fear set in.

The US population, especially away from the coastal metropolitan areas, would be less likely to panic, since the folks in flyover country resist control by the central government anyway.

Until I just put together the above assessment of population centers in the US, China, and Russia, I never really considered “existential survivability” in these same terms (probably with good reason).

Nonetheless, if the US generals have been analyzing war games as carefully as their counterparts in Russia and China, it’s a fair bet that they would at least give a casual glance at the factors I describe above.

:wink:

9 Likes

China and Russia are comrades of convenience only

Do you know that for a fact? Or only hope it is true.

Our state and defense departments were certain of this in February. They were wrong.

I am almost positive if China takes Taiwan, Russian subs will be protecting China’s fleet.

I want someone to update this book for current weapons systems and a Russia and China as teammates.

https://www.audible.com/pd/Red-Storm-Rising-Audiobook/B004D5…

NH

I agree with your assessment about the survivability of the dispersed governmental structure the US has, but I think it is important to evaluated whether “winning” a “world war” depends on taking out the maximum number of civilians in a population. While there are indeed strategic manufacturing and infrastructure targets within each country, the larger the remaining population, the more difficult the logistics of keeping them fed/clothed and “in-place” (so refugees don’t impede the movement of military forces along roads and rails.

What the US has not published regarding its last few wars is what our objectives were as well as what event constituted winning to the extent that we could leave and go home. Few civilians have thought through the consequences of a war between superpowers and compared them to the expected value of the gain towards accomplishing an objective goal.

The US has, since they lost power in 1947, supported the vestige of the “Nationalist” Chinese government and for decades had a significant lobby in Washington pushing the US towards a battle with the PRC (see “The Coldest Winter” by David Halberstam, which documents General McArthur following their policy during the Korean War which nearly lost the entire peninsula). We have, for decades, officially given up on the idea that Taiwan was a legitimate heir to the Chinese mainland and, in fact, wasn’t truly a nation at all. In the meantime, while not giving up their claim of sovereignty, China has not attempted to militarily take Taiwan. But, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be goaded or forced into protecting their interests (in the same fashion that Russia felt compelled to take Crimea from Ukraine when a new western-leaning Ukraine government didn’t renew the Russian lease on the Sevastopol naval base (and more recently, when Ukraine threatened to take Crimea back, invaded eastern and southern Ukraine with the goal. to create a strategic protection for Crimea).

The US has, so far, not given weapons to Ukraine which would allow them to attack significant distances across the Russian boarder in order to avoid the semblance that we are directly participating in the war. The US is strong enough that our participation could cause Russia to take significant preemptive and retaliatory actions which could spiral out of control and cause tremendous costs to the US and therefore the risks have been (correctly, I believe) calculated to outweigh the potential incremental rewards.

Jeff

2 Likes

China and Russia have parallel goals economically as both would like to reduce the dependence of using the US dollar as the major trade token. China would like its currency to be adopted as a standard reserve currency - a process facilitated by countries paying China in RMB instead of USD. Because of the significant sales of Russian petroleum products to China, they have agreed to use their “native” currencies for trade and are currently encouraging the Brazilians and Indians to join in (expedited by creating a bank-to-bank communication system to bypass the SWIFT system.

On the other hand, since their falling out during the 1960’s there has been military distrust between China and Russia. China is in the process of building a world-class “blue water” fleet and already has the largest navy in the world protecting its coast along the South China Sea. Their trade interests already span the globe and the time has come for their fleet to be able to project power wherever they feel it would be useful (despite their avoiding the type of significant military forays that the US constantly participates in). I believe they would not be happy to have Russian submarines “protecting” their navy and feel that, due to the proximity of the Chinese mainland to Taiwan, they can patrol the area from land as well as by sea.

Jeff

1 Like

Eeeeehhhh. Yes at a top down view. But if China/Russia destroy all militaries in the northern hemisphere, they get any political/financial rules they want. Think larger scale.

Russia goes west and China goes east. Plenty of fun to be had.

China goes east and south.

By nuking Shanghai alone, the US could take out 26 million people in one fell swoop.

One strike hitting Moscow could take out 13 million at once.

It would take far many more direct strikes to take out an equal number of Americans.

Rounding up, the numbers indicate: New York 9 million, Los Angeles 4 million, Chicago 3 million, Washington D.C. 1 million, San Francisco 1 million, Seattle 1 million, Houston 2 million, Philadelphia 2 million, Atlanta 1 million, Dallas 1.5 million, Miami 0.5 million.


That is not how any of this works at all. After a handful of strikes by all parties the billions of people who survive will wish they were dead as soon as possible. And they will get their wish.
1 Like

That is not how any of this works at all. After a handful of strikes by all parties the billions of people who survive will wish they were dead as soon as possible. And they will get their wish.

Leap,

I am thankful that my city would likely be on the list for annihilation. I would not like to try and survive on what’s left of my post COVID-19 hoard of canned food.

On the other hand, in the event of a total war involving the extensive use of nukes, our “wise political leaders” may temporarily interrupt, if not solve, the problem of global warming by creating a nuclear winter that could last 25 years or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

By way of analogy, periodic volcanic winters have occurred throughout geologic history, including some truly epic rapid global temperature reductions of 25 degrees Fahrenheit or more.

https://www.britannica.com/science/volcanic-winter

The 1816 eruption of Mount Tambora alone lowered the global temperature by approximately 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/…

Later in the same century, the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa lowered the global temperature by approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/12/23/krakataus-er…

As you suggest, surviving total war with volleys of nuclear weapons would not be easy or pleasant if one actually lived through it. But hey, look on the bright side… planetary cooling.

:wink:

5 Likes

Just a note here: I opened a can of Spam I had for 3 years tonight. It had an expiration date of Aug 2022. Tasted like fresh spam to me.

1 Like

The carrier group has a huge offensive capability.

Only above sea level.

US carrier groups often (always?) include submarines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

1 Like

But if China/Russia destroy all militaries in the northern hemisphere, they get any political/financial rules they want.

If?

If??

If???

IF pigs could fly*!*

1 Like

If China/Russia destroy all …

China is totally dependent on our wealth. Russia can not create its own wealth.

Interesting how the fascists, labeled of old as communists or repackaged, are totally dependent on the democracies.

The fascists are a burden to us. Under their own steam they would not exist.

2 Likes