Pre-war analyze inference

[apiSubmarine]

Here is a picture showing 2 country with their military force in south china sea, Can anyone anticipate the outcome of a war if it does happen, please note that this is not ally with any other else country,

 

[C130]

not enough information. the situation would surely change rapidly if war was to happen and escalate. china is stuck to it's coast, the U.S would have multiple fleets heading towards the SCS within a week.

 

[Transhumanist]

I found this relevant, though I do apologies about it's lack of focus and use of some hypotheticals.

Still, any regional discussion discounting or omitting the JMSDF isn't an honest assessment.

(this is from 2014, so it isn't completely accurate)

Regional air-forces such as those of Japan and the US, and bases in Australia (and to the West of China) should be accounted for as well.

 

[apiSubmarine]

Long range bomber can be arrive in a few hours such B2

 

[Genesis]

not enough information. the situation would surely change rapidly if war was to happen and escalate. china is stuck to it's coast, the U.S would have multiple fleets heading towards the SCS within a week.

You know how long it took the US to get ready for operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom? Hint, it's not a week.

 

[C130]

You know how long it took the US to get ready for operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom? Hint, it's not a week.

I said the carriers would be HEADING towards the SCS. not like the U.S doesn't have any assets in the area. also not like we are going to be invading China either.

 

[KAL-EL]

Thank god almighty for attack subs, SSGNs and SSBNs

 

[Transhumanist]

I said the carriers would be HEADING towards the SCS. not like the U.S doesn't have any assets in the area. also not like we are going to be invading China either.

If war occurs I would think it's important to note who starts it; who attacks who - not just assess the regional capabilities. I say this since the US is a NATO member (and its key contribute), and if attacked it can invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter to summon allies into the conflict too (it can invoke Article 4 if it feels threatened to ask for support too).

This force would include Turkey, who could provide the US with warships and access to airbases, nuclear armed France and the UK, who would also supply logistical support, ships and subs - air assets too based out of regional nations and some other minor nations such as Norway and Italy, who could also provide logistical assets, air assets and intelligence.

NATO partners such as Sweden and Australia would be called upon too.

I feel this dynamic is often overlooked, and the US has been historically reactionary, so it's unlikely to fire first. WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq wars, Afghanistan, they were in response to another nations aggression. Vietnam is an outliers.

This historical reluctance to make the first move increases the likelihood of NATO involvement.

@Nihonjin1051 - thoughts on this dynamic?

 

[terranMarine]

You forgot the invasion of Iraq, reactionary or outlier?

 

[biendong]

china can bully small neighbors only. facing with US, China can't.

 

[Genesis]

If war occurs I would think it's important to note who starts it; who attacks who - not just assess the regional capabilities. I say this since the US is a NATO member (and its key contribute), and if attacked it can invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter to summon allies into the conflict too (it can invoke Article 4 if it feels threatened to ask for support too).

This force would include Turkey, who could provide the US with warships and access to airbases, nuclear armed France and the UK, who would also supply logistical support, ships and subs - air assets too based out of regional nations and some other minor nations such as Norway and Italy, who could also provide logistical assets, air assets and intelligence.

NATO partners such as Sweden and Australia would be called upon too.

I feel this dynamic is often overlooked, and the US has been historically reactionary, so it's unlikely to fire first. WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq wars, Afghanistan, they were in response to another nations aggression. Vietnam is an outliers.

This historical reluctance to make the first move increases the likelihood of NATO involvement.

@Nihonjin1051 - thoughts on this dynamic?

So we are building billions of dollars worth of islands and developing and building our new coast guard so we can fire first? We won't fire first, we may not even fire second or third.

Firing is for people with no other options, we have multiple options. Which is why I feel the US also won't fire first, what you need to watch for is your allies, not Japan, firing first, just in case they feel the US isn't supporting them enough and that there's nothing more diplomatic or otherwise they can do.

I said the carriers would be HEADING towards the SCS. not like the U.S doesn't have any assets in the area. also not like we are going to be invading China either.

You do realize why you have 11 carriers right, some are in training, others under maintenance, I'm assuming US superiority to the French carrier, but that doesn't mean the US can call upon it's carriers at a moment's notice.

I can't say how many you can call upon, but from what I have read, it's about half, if that to be fully combat ready.

We are not Iraq, we won't bury our fighters in sand.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Please don't start a fight with USA, I would hate to see China lose, considering how I own quite a bit of shares of Alibaba.

Stick to fighting Vietnam, US won't do anything, just like 1974, 1979, 1988.

 

[Aepsilons]

@Nihonjin1051 - thoughts on this dynamic?

@Transhumanist ,

Hi,



You’re correct to refer to France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Turkey, Spain, Italy --- as Europe is home to some of America’s most stalwart allies and partners, many of whom have sacrificed alongside U.S forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Europe is America’s principal partner in seeking global and economic security, and will remain so for the forseeable future. At the same time , security challenges and unresolved conflicts persist in parts of Europe and Eurasia, where the United States must continue to promote regional security and Euro-Atlantic integration. The United States has enduring interests in supporting peace and prosperity in Europe, as well as bolstering the strength and vitality of NATO, which is critical to the security of Europe and Beyond (Asia).

In light of this situation and in light of the global threats, the United States shall maintain its Article 5 commitments to allied security and promote enhanced capacity and interoperability for the coalition operations. The United States has and is currently investing on what it calls “Smart Defense” approach to pool, share, specialize capabilities with NATO allies to meet all threats.

It is in my professional opinion that Japan will partake in this so called Joint Force of 2020 where there will be seamless cooperation between the Armed Forces of NATO member states in Europe, the United States as well as Japan, South Korea --- in handling and addressing threats to our mutual interests.



Regards,

 

[biendong]

Please don't start a fight with USA, I would hate to see China lose, considering how I own quite a bit of shares of Alibaba.

Stick to fighting Vietnam, US won't do anything, just like 1974, 1979, 1988.

US would like Asian have involved to fighting first. US will come at the end and claim a victory on Chinese expansionism, like what he did in WW II.

Smart American.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

Stick to fighting Vietnam, US won't do anything, just like 1974, 1979, 1988.

You are so mean. bursting bubbles for the poor viet guys like this...

Stick to fighting Vietnam, US won't do anything, just like 1974, 1979, 1988.

You are so mean. bursting bubbles for the poor viet guys like this...