Wargame simulations show Russia and China could defeat US

[Holy Tedalonia]

For the Russian part I blame the European states for not contributing their NATO norm to the defense budget.

The more you think about it, the only reason why NATO countries like Germany, Sweden, etc are so nice and social-economically is because America foots the Defense Bill.

If America decided "Alright, we're gonna start spending less on the military" then the rest of NATO would have to increase their spending on their military because they can't rely on the burgers to defend their nation.

(I'm kind of talking out of my ass, pls correct me if I am wrong about literally everything)

Europeans are just not that militaristic in general, if america spends less militarily more likely then not, it isn’t going to improve. Only kicking leeches off of NATO most likely would elicit a reaction.

[Sneudal]

For the Russian part I blame the European states for not contributing their NATO norm to the defense budget.

The more you think about it, the only reason why NATO countries like Germany, Sweden, etc are so nice and social-economically is because America foots the Defense Bill.

If America decided "Alright, we're gonna start spending less on the military" then the rest of NATO would have to increase their spending on their military because they can't rely on the burgers to defend their nation.

(I'm kind of talking out of my ass, pls correct me if I am wrong about literally everything)

You said it yourself, wrong about literally everything.

The main reason as to why these countries don't spend an insane amount of money on the military is because there isn't any serious threat to them. What the U.S. does is irrelevant to the matter.

[Holy Tedalonia]

The more you think about it, the only reason why NATO countries like Germany, Sweden, etc are so nice and social-economically is because America foots the Defense Bill.

If America decided "Alright, we're gonna start spending less on the military" then the rest of NATO would have to increase their spending on their military because they can't rely on the burgers to defend their nation.

(I'm kind of talking out of my ass, pls correct me if I am wrong about literally everything)

You said it yourself, wrong about literally everything.

The main reason as to why these countries don't spend an insane amount of money on the military is because there isn't any serious threat to them. What the U.S. does is irrelevant to the matter.

Minus litterally every nation remotely next to good old Rus.

[Sneudal]

You said it yourself, wrong about literally everything.

The main reason as to why these countries don't spend an insane amount of money on the military is because there isn't any serious threat to them. What the U.S. does is irrelevant to the matter.

Minus litterally every nation remotely next to good old Rus.

Eh, only Ukraine and Georgia, and for both are important reasons as to why Russia intervened. But they aren't 'Germany or Sweden', not even remotely.

As for the baltics, they're just whining about nothing.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Minus litterally every nation remotely next to good old Rus.

Eh, only Ukraine and Georgia, and for both are important reasons as to why Russia intervened. But they aren't 'Germany or Sweden', not even remotely.

As for the baltics, they're just whining about nothing.

Eh, it’s more like Russia cant else, they risk a world war a situation I doubt they or anyone else really desires.

Russia has fan fictions about remaking the Russian empire

[Papalotltlan]

Has anyone ever told you you're too optimistic?

Been thinking about these words on my daily walk this morning.

Reflecting on that while listening to birds chirping, chatting with neighbors and, looking at the blue sky strengthened my opinion that peace is the only way.

That's nice, my morning was quite lovely too. But lovely mornings don't stop bad men from starting wars. Also, and this is a genuine question, what is your opinion on Neville Chamberlain? Like I'm not trying to bait you or something, I'm just curious.

[Myrensis]

Scary.

Scary World War III ‘wargames’ show U.S. forces crushed by Russia and China in certain hot spots around the globe.

Research organization RAND has run dozens of wargames simulating major conflict scenarios in what it describes as Russia and China’s “backyards.” The wargames suggest that the U.S. forces in those locations would get attacked by a vast array of both conventional and cyber weapons.

RAND Senior Defense Analyst David Ochmanek discussed the simulations at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) in Washington D.C. last week. “In our games, where we fight China or Russia … blue gets its a** handed to it, not to put too fine a point on it,” he said, during a panel discussion. Blue denotes U.S. forces in the simulations.

“We lost a lot of people, we lose a lot of equipment, we usually fail to achieve our objectives of preventing aggression by the adversary,” Ochmanek added during the CNAS discussion.

Based on the wargames, a clash with Russia in the Baltic states would result in the rapid defeat of U.S. forces and their allies, Ochmanek told Fox News. “Within 48 to 72 hours, Russian forces are able to reach a capital of a Baltic state,” he said. On the other side of the world, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, while a massive military gamble for China, would also pose a huge challenge for U.S. forces in the area, according to Ochmanek.

Russia and China have amassed large inventories of precision-guided cruise missiles and ballistic missiles that can reach hundreds of miles and strike military targets, the researcher said. Set against this backdrop, U.S. military outposts and aircraft carriers in the contested regions could face a potential devastating barrage of missiles.

In RAND’s wargames and analysis, Russia, and particularly China, unleash so many missiles that they overcome U.S. defenses. “They send salvos that are so great that we cannot intercept all the missiles,” Ochmanek said.

The researcher notes that the key “domains of warfare” are contested from the start of hostilities. The U.S., he explains, should not assume air and maritime superiority over the battlespace. American space assets could also face attacks, while U.S. command and control systems could be targeted by electromagnetic and cyber weapons.

To combat these threats, U.S. forces could ramp up their deployment of so-called ‘standoff’ missiles that can be fired from large distances, such as cruise missiles, according to Ochmanek, along with highly robust reconnaissance systems and jam-resistant communications.

“For a sustained investment of an additional $8 billion a year between 2020 and 2030, the U.S. Air Force could buy the kit needed to make a difference,” he said, noting that similar sums would be required for the Army and Navy.

America’s posture is also key when it comes to challenging potential adversaries such as Russia, according to Ochmanek. “It’s putting more combat power back into Europe, and putting it on Europe’s eastern flank,” he said.

The U.S. National Defense Strategy, which was released by the DoD last year, cites the restoration of “America’s competitive edge by blocking global rivals Russia and China from challenging the U.S. and our allies,” as one its key goals.

“Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department, and require both increased and sustained investment, because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those threats to increase in the future,” the strategy explains.

Wargame simulations show that both Russia and China could defeat the US in both Taiwan and in the Baltic states. I believe that this demonstrates the growing power of both Russia and China and the threat that they pose to both the US and its allies. Russia could crush us in the Baltic states and China could crush us in Taiwan. In fact, Russia could conquer a Baltic state in less than 72 hours. My question is this: is this indicative of our need to strengthen our military? For all the talk about how much the US wastes on the military... if we can not even defend Taiwan or our Baltic allies then clearly something is wrong.

Or it demonstrates that the Baltics and Taiwan are A. small, and B. in Russia and China's backyards respectively, so they can obviously bring much more force to bear on them in a short amount of time than we can, and would be extremely difficult to dislodge once they do.

'Strengthening our military' is not an issue, they could not beat us in a conventional drag out fight, it's whether we want to permanently base entire armies and fleets and air forces in the Baltics and Taiwan 'just in case'.

[Sneudal]

Eh, only Ukraine and Georgia, and for both are important reasons as to why Russia intervened. But they aren't 'Germany or Sweden', not even remotely.

As for the baltics, they're just whining about nothing.

Eh, it’s more like Russia cant else, they risk a world war a situation I doubt they or anyone else really desires.

Russia has fan fictions about remaking the Russian empire

Which is why Russia isn't a threat to (the majority of) Europe, and thus money isn't wasted on a pointless high military budget.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Eh, it’s more like Russia cant else, they risk a world war a situation I doubt they or anyone else really desires.

Russia has fan fictions about remaking the Russian empire

Which is why Russia isn't a threat to (the majority of) Europe, and thus money isn't wasted on a pointless high military budget.

Look you can read!

Yes, Russia wont pull stunts right now, but doesnt mean their not a threat. People acted like Germany wouldn’t do anything right before ww2, because of France and England, and look what happened.

[Novus America]

The more you think about it, the only reason why NATO countries like Germany, Sweden, etc are so nice and social-economically is because America foots the Defense Bill.

If America decided "Alright, we're gonna start spending less on the military" then the rest of NATO would have to increase their spending on their military because they can't rely on the burgers to defend their nation.

(I'm kind of talking out of my ass, pls correct me if I am wrong about literally everything)

You said it yourself, wrong about literally everything.

The main reason as to why these countries don't spend an insane amount of money on the military is because there isn't any serious threat to them. What the U.S. does is irrelevant to the matter.

What the US does is absolutely relevant considering we subsidize the defense of Europe!

If we are expected to defend Europe, Europe must be expected to defend itself.

If they do not want to spend and assume the big bear is nice a cuddly fine.
Then they should get the hell out of NATO.

We should start expelling those who do not contribute.

[Shanhwa]

Has anyone ever told you you're too optimistic?

Been thinking about these words on my daily walk this morning.

Reflecting on that while listening to birds chirping, chatting with neighbors and, looking at the blue sky strengthened my opinion that peace is the only way.

Your happy life doesn’t mean that war isn’t inevitable sometimes. War is hell, yet it is also apart of human instinct and nature. We are a greedy, selfish, violent race. That is a matter of fact. Yes, we have slightly evolved beyond carnal animalistic behavior, but war still happens. And it will still bring at the carnage in the human being.

[Seangoli]

Which is why Russia isn't a threat to (the majority of) Europe, and thus money isn't wasted on a pointless high military budget.

Look you can read!

Yes, Russia wont pull stunts right now, but doesnt mean their not a threat. People acted like Germany wouldn’t do anything right before ww2, because of France and England, and look what happened.

For the most part, we know Putin's game right now: facilitate political instability in more powerful European and American rivals, allowing Russia to more readily pursue influential and militaristic expansionism in the border states.

All of this being done for the expressed benefit of Russia, mind you. Going to war with NATO would be disastrous for his plans, which are entirely self-serving. Putin has figured out there are a lot more efficient means of harming other countries than actual war.

[Shanhwa]

For the Russian part I blame the European states for not contributing their NATO norm to the defense budget.

The more you think about it, the only reason why NATO countries like Germany, Sweden, etc are so nice and social-economically is because America foots the Defense Bill.

If America decided "Alright, we're gonna start spending less on the military" then the rest of NATO would have to increase their spending on their military because they can't rely on the burgers to defend their nation.

(I'm kind of talking out of my ass, pls correct me if I am wrong about literally everything)

Nope. You’re completely right.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Look you can read!

Yes, Russia wont pull stunts right now, but doesnt mean their not a threat. People acted like Germany wouldn’t do anything right before ww2, because of France and England, and look what happened.

For the most part, we know Putin's game right now: facilitate political instability in more powerful European and American rivals, allowing Russia to more readily pursue influential and militaristic expansionism in the border states.

All of this being done for the expressed benefit of Russia, mind you. Going to war with NATO would be disastrous for his plans, which are entirely self-serving. Putin has figured out there are a lot more efficient means of harming other countries than actual war.

Exactly, which is why he’s a considerable threat.

[Estanglia]

Well unfortunately, that wasn't the case then, and it isn't now. China is threatening the US and her allies of Taiwan and Japan. Russia is threatening Ukraine and the Middle East. I don't want war, but peace isn't the only logical option. I just hope that it's the best option.

China grumbles and gripes about Taiwan all the time, Japan's self defense force makes sure that no one is invading Sunrise land anytime soon.

That and SK's armed forces is apart of the US's clubhouse of friends along with Japan.

So that would also be a deterrent. Not even war, Samsung can just move out of China and move into SK and America should China invade Japan for some reason.

Middle East is too much of a mess to do anything with rn, and Russia wouldn't full on invade Ukraine unless they wanted everyone to declare war on them.

Peace is the only option that doesn't have a body count so it is the best option.

Lack of deaths doesn't make it the best option. Ignoring how impossible global peace can be (or even peace with just Russia and China without some major deterrent), even if peace existed all it takes is one bitch to ruin it, especially if you have no deterrent.

You can hope for the best, but you must prepare for the worst.

You're deluded in thinking that just because peace currently exists that it will stay that way, or that one can just simply "decide" to stay at peace with them. That's not how reality workers.

It will stay that way beacuse it's more profitable for China and Russia to stay at peace then go to war.

That and people don't want to go to war.

1) Seems strange that Russia is still involved in Crimea considering the sanctions.

2) Their leaders might. And they're the ones who matter.

Has anyone ever told you you're too optimistic?

Been thinking about these words on my daily walk this morning.

Reflecting on that while listening to birds chirping, chatting with neighbors and, looking at the blue sky strengthened my opinion that peace is the only way.

Optimism won't stop wars.

[Seangoli]

For the most part, we know Putin's game right now: facilitate political instability in more powerful European and American rivals, allowing Russia to more readily pursue influential and militaristic expansionism in the border states.

All of this being done for the expressed benefit of Russia, mind you. Going to war with NATO would be disastrous for his plans, which are entirely self-serving. Putin has figured out there are a lot more efficient means of harming other countries than actual war.

Exactly, which is why he’s a considerable threat.

He is a thrrat for different reasons, however. He is very, very unlikely to pose an actual military threat to Europe or any major nation. His threat is far more insidious in those countries, and far less obvious and more difficult to combat.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Exactly, which is why he’s a considerable threat.

He is a thrrat for different reasons, however. He is very, very unlikely to pose an actual military threat to Europe or any major nation. His threat is far more insidious in those countries, and far less obvious and more difficult to combat.

Oh, completely agree. Without NATO though I’d imagine he’d love to gobble up other nations.

[Shanhwa]

For the most part, we know Putin's game right now: facilitate political instability in more powerful European and American rivals, allowing Russia to more readily pursue influential and militaristic expansionism in the border states.

All of this being done for the expressed benefit of Russia, mind you. Going to war with NATO would be disastrous for his plans, which are entirely self-serving. Putin has figured out there are a lot more efficient means of harming other countries than actual war.

Exactly, which is why he’s a considerable threat.

In my eyes, China is a bigger threat than Russia. The optimal solution would be in some way increasing relations with Russia and accepting them into possibly even NATO and get them to help in crushing China. Though unless we give them considerable... “assurances”, it’s unlikely to happen.

[Novus America]

Exactly, which is why he’s a considerable threat.

In my eyes, China is a bigger threat than Russia. The optimal solution would be in some way increasing relations with Russia and accepting them into possibly even NATO and get them to help in crushing China. Though unless we give them considerable... “assurances”, it’s unlikely to happen.

I do not see how anyone can even legitimately dispute that China is a MUCH greater threat than Russia.

Russia’s relatively small population and economy greatly limit what it can do.

[Seangoli]

Exactly, which is why he’s a considerable threat.

In my eyes, China is a bigger threat than Russia. The optimal solution would be in some way increasing relations with Russia and accepting them into possibly even NATO and get them to help in crushing China. Though unless we give them considerable... “assurances”, it’s unlikely to happen.

Yes, China poses a larger threat, particularly to our economy. Russia is still not working with anything approaching our interests in mind, amd actively undermines them however. It would be downright foolish to trust them as anything approaching an ally. Russia is equally far more aggressive and far less compromising than China is. China would be easier to work with, even if they pose a larger threat.

[Shanhwa]

In my eyes, China is a bigger threat than Russia. The optimal solution would be in some way increasing relations with Russia and accepting them into possibly even NATO and get them to help in crushing China. Though unless we give them considerable... “assurances”, it’s unlikely to happen.

Yes, China poses a larger threat, particularly to our economy. Russia is still not working with anything approaching our interests in mind, amd actively undermines them however. It would be downright foolish to trust them as anything approaching an ally. Russia is equally far more aggressive and far less compromising than China is. China would be easier to work with, even if they pose a larger threat.

Oh, I forgot to add onto my post that we would need to assist the Russians in reforming their governments, especially once Putin dies. No, I’m not calling for his death, but whenever he does in fact die, as humans do; health conditions, old age, whatever. But with Putin in power we should at the very least get better relations with them.

[Purpelia]

The US not being the only superpower sounds pretty good to me.

Depends on who the other superpower is.

Don't matter. Only thing that matters is that there is more than one bully so that they get distracted posturing at one another rather than molesting the little guys.

[Aclion]

Depends on who the other superpower is.

Don't matter. Only thing that matters is that there is more than one bully so that they get distracted posturing at one another rather than molesting the little guys.

Yeah, remember the cold war? No little guys getting molested at all.

[Sneudal]

Which is why Russia isn't a threat to (the majority of) Europe, and thus money isn't wasted on a pointless high military budget.

Look you can read!

Yes, Russia wont pull stunts right now, but doesnt mean their not a threat. People acted like Germany wouldn’t do anything right before ww2, because of France and England, and look what happened.

I can't sadly, my cat told me wat was written…

People back then were retarded if they thought Germany wasn't building up for war. And France + Britain were even more retarded by giving in to the demands of the Germans till it was way too late.

You said it yourself, wrong about literally everything.

The main reason as to why these countries don't spend an insane amount of money on the military is because there isn't any serious threat to them. What the U.S. does is irrelevant to the matter.

What the US does is absolutely relevant considering we subsidize the defense of Europe!

If we are expected to defend Europe, Europe must be expected to defend itself.

If they do not want to spend and assume the big bear is nice a cuddly fine.
Then they should get the hell out of NATO.

We should start expelling those who do not contribute.

1) Hardly.
2) You aren't expected to defend Europe, you're expected to aid your allies in the defense when needed. Same happens vice versa.
3) NATO is a general military alliance, not a coalition against big bears that want to cuddle you very tightly. So no, they don't have to leave NATO. If you don't like it, you are free to leave instead though.

In my eyes, China is a bigger threat than Russia. The optimal solution would be in some way increasing relations with Russia and accepting them into possibly even NATO and get them to help in crushing China. Though unless we give them considerable... “assurances”, it’s unlikely to happen.

Yes, China poses a larger threat, particularly to our economy. Russia is still not working with anything approaching our interests in mind, amd actively undermines them however. It would be downright foolish to trust them as anything approaching an ally. Russia is equally far more aggressive and far less compromising than China is. China would be easier to work with, even if they pose a larger threat.

The question remains, will you still be able to 'work' with China once they feel powerful enough to make serious demands? Answer is no, just like you can't 'work' with the U.S. right now. Superpowers make the demands and try to enforce them by any means, they aren't the ones fulfilling them.

[Novus America]

Look you can read!

Yes, Russia wont pull stunts right now, but doesnt mean their not a threat. People acted like Germany wouldn’t do anything right before ww2, because of France and England, and look what happened.

I can't sadly, my cat told me wat was written…

People back then were retarded if they thought Germany wasn't building up for war. And France + Britain were even more retarded by giving in to the demands of the Germans till it was way too late.

What the US does is absolutely relevant considering we subsidize the defense of Europe!

If we are expected to defend Europe, Europe must be expected to defend itself.

If they do not want to spend and assume the big bear is nice a cuddly fine.
Then they should get the hell out of NATO.

We should start expelling those who do not contribute.

1) Hardly.
2) You aren't expected to defend Europe, you're expected to aid your allies in the defense when needed. Same happens vice versa.
3) NATO is a general military alliance, not a coalition against big bears that want to cuddle you very tightly. So no, they don't have to leave NATO. If you don't like it, you are free to leave instead though.

Yes, China poses a larger threat, particularly to our economy. Russia is still not working with anything approaching our interests in mind, amd actively undermines them however. It would be downright foolish to trust them as anything approaching an ally. Russia is equally far more aggressive and far less compromising than China is. China would be easier to work with, even if they pose a larger threat.

The question remains, will you still be able to 'work' with China once they feel powerful enough to make serious demands? Answer is no, just like you can't 'work' with the U.S. right now. Superpowers make the demands and try to enforce them by any means, they aren't the ones fulfilling them.

You realize the Europeans expect us to actually maintain a military presence in Europe (despite the EU being perfectly capable of building a far larger military than Russia on their own)?

Why should we have to keep troops in Europe, or be expected to defend Europe if Europe is unwilling to defend itself?

And it is not the US who is failing to meet NATO obligations, although we might have to consider radical action unless things change, the status quo is completely unacceptable.
The US forming a New NATO of only countries actually meeting or trying to meet obligations, might have to be considered.