Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2020, 08:16   #31
Penn
Area Commander
 
Penn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,977
The Chinese research paper would beg to differ.

Quote:
Why invest a trillion and decades to counter US carrier battle fleets?

They can be disrupted and denied far more cheaply(proportionally), if still not cheap.

I think for me to be convinced that this is an integrated Chinese plan with a bio weapons component I’d need to see what I am unable to see.
Your prejudice in accepting the most simplistic bang for the buck has made you blind.
Without firing a shot, they have execute a brilliant plan to place China as the #1 economic power. Regardless of what industry is moved back, they now possess the tech, manufacturing, social power to compete and dominate.

The USA/EU/West have lost leaders, ships, and a roaring economy.

Please example for me China's losses. Or one leader with the virus, could they have a vaccine?
Penn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2020, 08:45   #32
Penn
Area Commander
 
Penn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,977
Also, considering this statement which acknowledges the unflinching ability to commit to a policy genocide, why would the release of a virus be beyond your consideration in China meeting their goals?

Quote:
And they have a greater willingness to intimidate or slaughter their way to retention of power as witnessed with the Uyghur peoples.
This is policy execution via MSM, UN, Academia, etc., etc,.
Quote:
But both the Uyghur and Hong Kong problems for China have evaporated in terms of global mindshare.

Last edited by Penn; 04-04-2020 at 08:49.
Penn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2020, 02:14   #33
Flagg
Area Commander
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn View Post
The Chinese research paper would beg to differ.

Some of the US’s best and brightest working very hard to solve these problems would agree with me(although more of an ‘I agree with them’):

https://steveblank.com/2019/01/08/th...orizons-model/

In terms of tech acceleration disrupting legacy capability, in other words: persistent capability becomes perishable


Your prejudice in accepting the most simplistic bang for the buck has made you blind.
Without firing a shot, they have execute a brilliant plan to place China as the #1 economic power. Regardless of what industry is moved back, they now possess the tech, manufacturing, social power to compete and dominate.

The USA/EU/West have lost leaders, ships, and a roaring economy.

Please example for me China's losses. Or one leader with the virus, could they have a vaccine?
I’ll turn the temp down a bit to reduce risk of animosity and not post anything in absolutes.

Because we are talking about theories rather than concrete physical law.

If your theory is correct, and it is just a theory, there’s a lot of moving parts to manage for successful execution. A lot. Orchestral sized even.

A counter theory could include the possibility of a mediocre western response, led by mediocre leadership, presiding over a mediocre economy.

I know it’s not binary. But what’s more likely? Complexity or mediocrity?

Make no mistake, I am all for a US led western coalition continuing to drive the planet earth bus.

And I firmly believe China is adversary #1.

But I’m not convinced there is a preponderance of evidence of Chinese premeditated action.(That’s not a challenge to you to have to convince me.)

It’s clear they are leveraging this sh!tshow as best they possibly can.

If it were premeditated, surely we would have seen signalling/indicators from the Executive Branch by now?

I am certainly in the blame China camp.

Another War on the Rocks articles presses an interesting angle on reparations:

https://warontherocks.com/2020/03/ch...the-trillions/

While it’s a great article, I don’t see it at practical.

In my opinion, China will never pay. And if they were somehow held accountable and compelled to, it would probably lead to war.

In short, I suspect we are not far apart on the destination of where we see this inevitably going.

My guess is we only differ on the “journey” to get there in terms of means/methods and casus belli.
Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2020, 13:13   #34
Penn
Area Commander
 
Penn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,977
China has 1.37B people 730 million men 667 million women.
Round off a 20% + male population base.
Sociological disparity in M/F = Social unrest
https://www.livepopulation.com/country/china.html
As stated here The CCP main concern is regime survival

Arguing the Three Horizons model in initiatives.
Some Horizon 3 disruptions do take long periods of development
China has one overriding goal, the one China Policy territorial integrity – Beginning 1949-ongoning

September 21th 2011: Before running for president, Trump tweets “China is neither an ally or a friend — they want to beat us and own our country”.
May 2, 2016: While campaigning for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, Trump says “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country and that’s what they’re doing. It’s the greatest theft in the history of the world.” The statement is one of many that Trump makes on the campaign trail about China’s trade practices

12/2016 President-elect Trump Accept ROC (Taiwan) call - Breaching established protocol - One China Policy

July 6th, 2018 Confrontation firmly established
Trade war begins
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/us-c...de-war-starts/

Horizon 3 disruptions can be rapidly implemented by repurposing existing Horizon 1 technologies into new business/mission models
• Speed of deployment of a disruptive/asymmetric product is a force multiplier
• The attackers have the advantage, as the incumbents are burdened with legacy
• COVID-19 is circulating

Method of distribution
Event Horizon 4/2/2020
http://rocs.hu-berlin.de/corona/

“Park’s essay outlined several functions of war. First, war helps resolve international disputes over matters such as territorial boundaries and religious and other ideologies. No matter what one might think of war, historically it has resolved disputes between nations, with the winner of the war winning the dispute.”

“The Social Function of War: Observations and Notes,” in a leading sociology journal (Park, 1941).Park, R. E. (1941). The social function of war: Observations and notes. American Journal of Sociology, 46, 551–570.
Penn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2020, 18:16   #35
Flagg
Area Commander
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,338
I wonder if this retired Brigadier and his book will be brought into the limelight more:

https://t.co/iDOdaxYWHH?amp=1
Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2020, 18:39   #36
Penn
Area Commander
 
Penn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,977
No longer alone.
Penn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:34.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies