I keep hearing that this winter will be bad for manufacturing in Europe.

[Scottl]

I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese military, even though they haven't fought major wars in decades. My technologist, who worked in China for several years, says that there, in contrast to the "excellent" Russian army, they really do not like corruption and exaggeration of their capabilities. So they are really engaged in combat training and weapons development. And they have come a long way in this over the past 30 years.

I know that even at their relatively primitive state of development during the Korean war they caused a lot of grief for the more technically sophisticated USA so with more modern technology they shouldn't be viewed lightly.

 

[michiganbuck]

Other than the possible taking of Taiwan I think China is not likely not going to start military conflict, and ground wars are not efficient anymore as seen by Russia and Ukraine.
Tawan is not a NATO country. Could have should have is way past now that China is making a claim? The USA telling China what to is sticking our neck way out.
Even if we could take Russia or China it would be a bloody mess trying to prove that.

 

[Milling man]

I know that even at their relatively primitive state of development during the Korean war they caused a lot of grief for the more technically sophisticated USA so with more modern technology they shouldn't be viewed lightly.

Still, it is worth noting that it was really a concern - nothing more. The losses of Chinese and American troops are simply incomparable.

 

[michiganbuck]

China has stated that they will use everything to protect if they are attached. I respect that.
The USA being devoted to protecting Ukraine may start WW3 and may pit Russia, China, and North Korea against the USA for lose, lose situation.

 

[standardparts]

China has stated that they will use everything to protect if they are attached. I respect that.
The USA being devoted to protecting Ukraine may start WW3 and may pit Russia, China, and North Korea against the USA for lose, lose situation.

Well Princeton University seems to be thinking about a "what if" over the actions of EU/NATO/Russia. They even did a simulation.....Guess it's all about how smart the people at Princeton are...or how stupid world leaders are. In any event it certainly could be a very cold winter in Europe and tough on manufacturing.

Only thing missing is.......'Game Over Dude'.

 

[D Nelson]

There is one major difference between real wars and conflicts of recent past: There have not been a war for quite some time where there were two armies directly facing each other!
One could possibly mention the first few days of Desert Storm as the last one, but there the balance of power was so overwhelmingly in favor of the allied forces that I don't think it qualifies.
Maybe some battles in Vietnam does, but you'd probably have to go back the the Korean war for a real example.

IOW not many alive today has hands-on experience with a war where the soldiers are in trenches and duking it out day after day after day.

Maybe hamburger hill might qualify for a face to face battle
Don

 

[michiganbuck]

QT (Princeton University seems to be thinking about a "what if")
But they are missing the boat, the nuclear ones. the first volley will hit the USA.
Russians would not drop one in Ukrain to sit and wait for a reaction.
We will be hit hard and fast, a good chance our guys with fingers on the button will be dead before we know that we are at war.
Russia's first nuck hit will hit us.
I am 4 miles away from one of the targets so a good chance to be a non-survever.
Nukes will hit DC about 20 minutes after a launch from 200 miles offshore.

 

[michiganbuck]

News: Putin 'vanishes to secret palace' as wave of protests spread through Russia.​

Putin is going to his bunker: Harris going to visit South Korea. Now a "roadmap for citizenship for nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants" labeled as a "priority."
Biden keeps telling that Russia is violating NATO rules (when Russia and Ukraine are not in NATO ..
China now owns 192,000 acres of U.S. agricultural land
China, North Korea, and Russia paring up.
Brazil is one of the world’s largest arms exporters to the Third World, whose side will they choose?
We will be very lucky not to have a war.


Forest Gump had it right "stupid is as stupid does."

 

[Scottl]

The more news I hear from Europe about mounting energy issues the more I feel sorry for them as the weather gets colder. I hope our European members will find ways to manage a difficult situation.

 

[Scottl]

QT (Princeton University seems to be thinking about a "what if")
But they are missing the boat, the nuclear ones. the first volley will hit the USA.
Russians would not drop one in Ukrain to sit and wait for a reaction.
We will be hit hard and fast, a good chance our guys with fingers on the button will be dead before we know that we are at war.
Russia's first nuck hit will hit us.
I am 4 miles away from one of the targets so a good chance to be a non-survever.
Nukes will hit DC about 20 minutes after a launch from 200 miles offshore.

Not that I would ever wish it but that is why "Boomers" (missile subs) exist, as a counterstrike that is not easily neutralized. Not all "our guys with fingers on the button will be dead before we know that we are at war".

 

[Milling man]

Colleagues, if we are already talking about the possibility of nuclear war, I would like to clarify some issues.
1. About the simulation from Princeton University. Simulations in which Russian silo-based ICBMs hit US silo launchers, or vice versa, have always seemed very strange to me. They will be empty at the moment of impact! In addition, there is absolutely no guarantee that this strike will disable the silos - they were calculated and tested (yes, missile silos were tested with a nuclear explosion, and more than once) for a nuclear strike. The silos can and will be equipped with various systems to protect against enemy strikes.
Silo-based missiles fly to each other for about 20 minutes, during which time the enemy is guaranteed to launch their own - and not at silos (what's the point of shooting at empty or almost empty mines with a very incomprehensible probability of putting them out of action?), But at other targets - bases submarines, objects of strategic importance in the country, etc. This is the essence of nuclear deterrence.
2. Sea-based missiles, due to their fundamental features (launching from an unknown place in advance), cannot be used to destroy modern, heavily protected silos - they will not have enough accuracy. To disable the silo, you need to get to the right place with very high accuracy. The location of ground silos is calculated and corrected to within meters.
3. Regarding the guy on the button. Command posts in both the Russian Federation and the United States have a GREATer degree of security than missile silos - if only because you do not need to have a "hole in the sky" for a missile. Most likely, only cruise missiles with anti-bunker nuclear bombs, which will arrive not very soon, will be able to destroy them - and in the case of Russian bombers, there is still a huge question whether they will reach anywhere at all The procedure for using nuclear weapons has long been approved and worked out to the smallest detail. Yes, some percentage of "guys on the button" will piss or go crazy with fear, this is normal.

 

[Scottl]

I cannot go into details but sea launched missiles do not launch "from an unknown place" and are plenty accurate enough.

However, let us hope cooler heads prevail and this never happens. I have seen articles suggesting that Putin's likely "nuclear option" in worst case is to shut off all energy supplies to Europe.

 

[Milling man]

sea launched missiles do not launch "from an unknown place"

I meant that the place of their launch is not known in advance with an accuracy of one meter, as is the case with silos.

 

[Scottl]

No further comment, especially with an inquiry from Russia.

 

[Bill D]

The reasons for advances in military technology can be very interesting. The use of "prop" weapons and equipment was often used-"broomsticks" substituted for actual machine guns to save weight on Doolittle's bombers, inflatable tanks during WW2, use of paradummies, "Ruperts" at Normandy, the list is endless.
While subterfuge is still possible. modern technology makes it quite easy to see what is actually happening on the ground. Drones have really been a game changer....as simple as a cheap drone and a grenade in a cup makes it really tough for boots on the ground.

Claim is Ukraine is making plywood models of the HIMARS artillery and letting russia waste high cost irepalcable missles blowing them up. Didn't Iran have plywood fighter jets for the usa to bomb?
BillD

 

[michiganbuck]

The down stock market is an indication of war worry.
with a big war and most if what we know blown up we won't need energy, food or money.
Just a couple of nuclear subs will be enough to make us very sad.
China and Russia claim 4 nuc subs each but likely there are many more that can shoot a nuck missel
Each could have 40 or 90 warheads. Knock out 40 or 90 USA cities with one sub.
Agree, humans must be pretty dumb to have such armaments.

 

[Milling man]

China and Russia claim 4 nuc subs each but likely there are many more that can shoot a nuck missel
Each could have 40 or 90 warheads. Knock out 40 or 90 USA cities with one sub.

Everything is not so bad According to the START-3 treaty, no more than 4 warheads are installed on one Trident 2 missile. For Ohio-class submarines, this gives up to 24*4=96 warheads per submarine.
The B88 has a yield of about 500 kt, which is quite a lot, but one warhead can still only destroy a fairly small city.
Of course, nuclear war is a terrible prospect, but in the choice between horror without end and a terrible end, I will prefer the second option.

 

[Freedommachine]

IN MY OPINION... it would never come to nuclear warfare. The fear of such sells very well though.

Hypothetically, say it did. There is nothing we can do to change it, why worry about it?

 

[Milling man]

Didn't Iran have plywood fighter jets for the usa to bomb?

I suspect that they have so many aircraft, of which only the hull is left, that it simply does not make sense to build special models.

 

[standardparts]

No more Nordstream pipelines for Germany and the EU. Somehow .....BOTH pipelines running under the Baltic now have holes and NO gas and some say sea water has filled the pipeline.
If true, likely going to present great challenges to manufacturing in the EU.....But wait, there's this: "The Baltic Pipe" The new pipeline delivering Norwegian nat'l gas to Poland is scheduled to go online today----without holes in it.
Crazy stuff.....