518
Taiwan reports second large-scale China air force incursion this week
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
518 points (93.3% liked)
World News
32353 readers
597 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Goddammit, I do NOT want us to be propping up a war in Ukraine and fighting an actual war with China.
I wonder if we'd drop Ukraine if WWIII was starting. On the one hand, it's WWIII, on the other hand maybe Russia is still a likely enemy?
in what world would anyone side with the US over china and russia
I'd expect US vassals like Canada, Japan and the EU to side with the US.
You could argue about vassel-ness, but yes, the whole Western block would, and many poor nations that lean that way as well, like Vietnam or Palau.
Vietnam has some beefs with China, but I think it's a bit more up in the air than that which way they'd turn since it'd be a real existential threat to them to militarily oppose China like that (plus they do have some productive deals with China).
Vietnam would shoot themselves in the foot by going against China. Either with China or attempting neutrality if possible. No country in the world that boarders China, Chinese allies and traded with them that much would do anything against them
True, and I have no special insight into Vietnamese politics. In this scenario the US is also right there, though, and is stronger than China assuming no MAD.
Vietnam and Palau should be read as examples only.
[laughs in hypersonic missile]
That would be MAD. Unless they're loaded with conventional warheads, in which case they'll run out pretty early on because those missiles are expensive and the US has bottomless supplies to reply with.
"the USA, where neoliberal capitalism has hollowed out the defense contractors so much they can't produce anywhere near enough artillery shells, has bottomless supplies and can afford more aircraft carriers than China can afford hypersonic missiles, which the USA has not even been able to successfully test."
pathetic
No, they just need to afford more missiles with a similar range. Aircraft carriers might prove to be the new battleships, but that's not the whole US military.
the force projection understander has logged on
You can argue about anything, but these countries are absolutely US vassals.
Don't underestimate my will to grow and eat nothing but potatos. If I don't die to bombs I'm making it through that shit.
That's why you go for the potato. This fucker will grow under any conditions. I'm sure we could figure out a way to make up for some of the hours lost too, solar panels + battery + grow lights. Doesn't need to run that much, just enough to make up the lost few hours. Maybe I should start investigating this now.
I don't know where you are, but they're guaranteed to not grow below freezing. You could use a greenhouse, but you better get building now because you're going to need an acre or two per person.
An acre? I got 200 out of my 2x4 raised bed this year that I've been playing around with and like 170 last year. Why do you say two acres per person? Google tells me that you usually get 16-24 tonnes per acre.
Now, obviously yield will be down during this but I'm not expecting it to be that bad. Tents could be an option if temperatures do get bad it's really not difficult to heat the tent we grow our palms in.
In all likelihood if the shit hits the fan I plan to organise a local group and we can commandeer the nearby golf course for land, while encouraging everyone to use what green space they have on top. Fuck allowing that land to go to waste in those conditions. This is all obviously assuming we don't die in the nukes or radiation.
It's been a while since I did the napkin math, but I thought that's roughly what it came out to. How much time from seeding is that including? You need 2000 calories a day about, and there's 365 days in a year, so that's 730,000 calories per year.
PS Unless you're near a missile silo, fallout is overhyped. Airbursts are the best way to damage light infrastructure and are pretty clean.
Nah you don't need 2000 calories a day. You need that to be healthy. We're talking about survival here.
The fastest way to destroy the enemy today is to cripple their economic centres. Every major city in the country will be a smoldering crate. And the ports will be turned into 2 smoldering craters. Every major town probably has at least one weapons factory somewhere. It'd reasonably only take 20-40 missiles to wipe most of this country off the face of the map. Hopefully you're right about fallout.
Either way I think I'll do ok if we survive the initial shit. Can't say the same for everyone but with some effort I can also help local people get the same thing up and running. There'll be no government left so we'll be on our own.
You might be less sedentary too, though. That can double or triple if you're trekking through arctic conditions. I don't know, that's what I plan with.
It's not impossible, especially if you're somewhere warm or in the other hemisphere. The people that survive the initial exchange will disproportionately be actual farmers, since they almost all are rural, and there's less mouths to feed.
Where I live in Canada is kind of fucked. I either need to hoard a lot of grain afterwards or evacuate to somewhere else.
I'm going to contradict you there too, I'm afraid. They'll crawl back out or their bunkers and try calling the shots. Whether people listen is another question.
Potatoes have a bit less than 800 calories per kg, which then works out to about 900kg/year on a 2000 calorie diet. If you can get the yields you were talking about you'll be fine on less than an acre, but they sound high to me. Growing some other stuff at the same time might be worth it for your sanity in a hard new world; staples don't very all that much in productivity.
Yeah, "WWIII but no nukes yet" discussions are always a little bit iffy. Let's try and keep a lid on things, guys.
It seems like the actual NATO doctrine is to try and dip back out of a full-scale war before things get radioactive, in the already bad scenario that it happens, and the conventional military is basically there to provide certainty that there's no benefit to escalating that far in the first place.
I assume NATO would officially swoop in and bomb the everliving fuck out of Russia's fleet and fortified positions before diverting their attention elsewhere. Basically giving Ukraine a much easier path forward.
Oh yeah, they could just clean up Russia directly if war was starting anyway. I think you're right.
Nobody wants to have to defend free and sovereign nations such as Ukraine and Taiwan from agressive expansionist foreign powers like China and Russia. But here we are.