212CD
-
-
I still don’t understand the point of a broad conventional arsenal.
Can two nuclear powers engage in “gentleman’s combat” fought with heavy conventional weapons without things escalating?
I get point of conventional weapons to slap down upstart belligerents.
I’m talking China/Russia vs. U.S. type scenarios.
Hell, we won’t even touch NK with a 10 foot pole.
-
I still don’t understand the point of a broad conventional arsenal.
Can two nuclear powers engage in “gentleman’s combat” fought with heavy conventional weapons without things escalating?
I get point of conventional weapons to slap down upstart belligerents.
I’m talking China/Russia vs. U.S. type scenarios.
Hell, we won’t even touch NK with a 10 foot pole.
I still don’t understand the point of a broad conventional arsenal.
Can two nuclear powers engage in “gentleman’s combat” fought with heavy conventional weapons without things escalating?
I get point of conventional weapons to slap down upstart belligerents.
I’m talking China/Russia vs. U.S. type scenarios.
Hell, we won’t even touch NK with a 10 foot pole.
It's a good question. I guess we could engage in a proxy war, as in Vietnam, where one major power is supposedly not involved, but is furnishing conventional weapons. But for a scenario like Taiwan, where it could be major power vs. major power, it would be very hard to stay conventional. I think we cave on Taiwan after a couple of dust-ups.
And if it goes nuclear, it's everybody. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. didn't just target Russia. America had made the decision to nuke China, also. And any other foreign nation with nuclear weapons not friendly to the U.S.
I suspect that policy still stands.
-
If China want to make the US go away they could use nukes. But the land, and other assets, would be useless for some time.
If China wants the US they have to march down main street with conventional weapons. Or take over the democrat party and make them all insane. This strategy seems to be succeeding so far.
