shhughes1116

People underestimate the experience and logistics necessary to execute military operations. Maybe they aren’t a paper tiger, but there is little evidence to suggest that they are capable of executing cross-service military operations outside of the Chinese mainland over a sustained period of time, or even a short period of time. Sure, they have a large military-industrial complex that can produce equipment. And sure, they have millions of military-aged men that Xi would be willing to march right into a meat grinder. But no one is invading China - they aren’t going to bring their resources to bear on a little tiny bridgehead on the coast of China. If they want to fight (and assuming no war with India), they have to take the fight to another land mass, across a significant body of water. I remain unconvinced that the Chinese can pull this off. I think their military capability is overestimated. And this is why I do not believe China will invade Taiwan.

Why do you think they don’t have any? It wouldn’t surprise me if they had a handful of plane-launched nukes, or potentially nuclear-tipped torpedos, for a doomsday scenario where China invades and things look bleak. This would be the quickest way to torch an invasion fleet in the Taiwan Strait and buy some time to re-organize defenses on the island. i think everyone has seen Ukraine and the long-term results of being disarmed by the West. I think we are going back to the age of nuclear weapon proliferation as a strategic deterrent.

Those pictures won’t need to go live on the television. Dead Chinese marines and sailors would be washing up on the shores of China for all to see first-hand. Hard to censor that. And remember that firing cruise missiles and ballistic missiles is not a one-way thing. Taiwan has plenty of ordinance to launch into China.

I like that play on Lincoln’s quote - well-said.

There won’t be an invasion of Taiwan. Pulling off a seaborne landing is quite literally the hardest military endeavor to pull-off. Look at the Western Theater in World War Two and the Allied experience at Dieppe, during Operation Torch, during Operation Husky, and the fighting at Salerno, at Anzio, at Normandy. And look at the USMC experience in the Pacific. Except for Dieppe, all of these landings were pulled off with complete air supremacy, complete naval supremacy, and overwhelming numbers of landing troops. The U.S. and the British are the only countries in the world with extensive real-world experience at pulling off contested seaborne landings and subsequently supporting them logistically. Now look at Taiwan. The island is bristling with air defense, ground-launched anti-ship missiles, and a coastline that makes seaborne landings challenging to execute and support. The PLA won’t achieve air supremacy or even superiority, and they won’t achieve naval supremacy. It would be like Omaha Beach x 100 for the Chinese, and that assumes the PLA marines even get to the beach which I doubt. once the initial attack is repulsed, you can expect Taiwan to start launching cruise missiles and ballistic missiles against the staging areas on the Chinese coastline. We haven’t even addressed the idea of drones, or the very likely military support from the U.S., Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. Xi knows that the odds of military success are as close to the zero bound as possible. Threats of invasion are just bluster.

I’ll bite, although split between two picks. 50% Ally Financial and 50% Calumet Specialty. You aren’t buying at the lows (especially with Calumet), but I think both are reasonably priced today for what I think their share price will be in five years.

When I was reading through this, I had flashbacks to Enterprise Group. Cathedral looks pretty interesting, and I am a sucker for the type of acquisition strategy they are pursuing.

I think the answer to this question lies in the next election. if Nicki Haley wins, then Ukraine wins by force or by Putin suing for peace. if Biden wins, then I think Ukraine gets a slow drip of weapons to keep the status quo. And if Trump wins, the range of possibilities is endless. The Biden Administration has slow-walked numerous armaments that would enable Ukraine to easily eject Russia beyond the pre-2014 borders. Examples include over 1,000 ATACMS (past their expiration date, "unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions, and costing the taxpayer to decommission when instead it would be free to ram it down Russian's throats), 100 of thousands of DPCIM 155s remaining in US inventories domestically and abroad ("unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions), 1000's of Bradley's and HMMVS that are being scrapped, 1000's of Abrams that are sitting around to either be scrapped or sent back to the plant for the next version of the Abrams tank, 100's of M1A1 Abrams that were recently given up by the USMC, and there is plenty more. We have over 200 Assault Breachers - based on the M1 chassis - literally the best mine-clearing engineering vehicle in the world - and we didn't give them any before they attacked the Surovkin line in the South. The whole reason these exist is for a ground war with a near-pear adversary. All of this equipment withheld or slow-walked because some spineless Administration members are worried about escalation, or because they make the false claim that this stuff is needed in case of war with China (it is not needed for a war with China). And I am tired of hearing the BS about how the US can't release high-tech gear, or that we can't possibly weaken active duty units. We have a precedent - Nixon - of stripping active duty combat aircraft from front-line units and handing them over to Israel, along with other arms and munitions. If the US wanted Ukraine to win, all of this stuff would be in Ukraine now and Ukraine would be stomping all over Russia. The war would probably be over by now.

More NTODY and more CLMT.

USS Ranger, as well as the USS Wasp (modeled after the Yorktown class carriers but “value engineered” to avoid exceeding the remaining treaty tons) were both slower than the Yorktown class carriers so they were kept in the Atlantic, or at least that was the plan prior to the Battle of Coral Sea and subsequently Battle of Midway. After those battles, the US was desperate for another Pacific carrier and the Wasp was the least-bad choice. Her value-engineering likely played a part in her demise during the Guadalcanal campaign. sorry for the deviation from the regularly scheduled programming on Ukraine…

The Lexington and Saratoga keels were started as battlexruisers and then converted to carriers so their layout was not conducive for a large air wing. The Ranger was intentionly built as a carrier - the first purpose built carrier for the US - so it had the right layout for a larger air wing. The British had the same issue with the Courageous class - originally laid down as battlexruisers so the layout was’t conducive for a large air wing.

Don’t forget the USS Ranger.

We produced about 2400 M39 ATACMS, and used about 600 across the various gulf wars and war in Afghanistan. Some were converted to unitary warheads. The remainder are past their “expiration date” and can not be used because of our policy against using cluster munitions. I’ll bet there are >1,000 of these left, maybe 2/3 with the shorter range. Disposal is expensive, unless you shove it down an Orc’s throat - that is gratis. I struggle to understand why we did not give these to Ukraine last year. They don’t fit into the fighting doctrine that would be employed in a war with China. Giving them to Ukraine earlier this year would have wrecked Russia’s ability to deploy their KA-52s as a CAS firefighting brigade.

I can think of two reasons for moving a carrier group or two into the vicinity. First, the Israeli Air Force is flying a pretty high tempo operation right now. If things get hairy with Hezbollah in the North, I think they will be overwhelmed. Cue up the carrier air wing. second, if things get hairy with Syria or Iran, Israeli air strikes will necessitate electronic warfare support. each air wing embarks with ~6 Growlers that fill this role. Easier to operate these off the coast where they can maximize time airborne given the short legs of a Growler. the carrier group provides options in case things go south. And if we decide that Putin deserves a punch in the face, easy enough to do that in Syria with his “these soldiers that speak Russian and carry Russian guns aren’t really Russians” mercenary group.

This is going to be an interesting court case, and likely a series of court cases as everyone sues everyone. Lahaina exists within the rain shadow of the West Maui mountains, so it is a fairly dry place in a normal year. Dora added high winds to the mix. You have to ask why the fire department or emergency management agency didn’t have a fire watch going, or if it was, how they could have missed the fire. This is negligent. You have to ask why the Maui Emergency Management Agency didn’t sound the sirens. Bullsh*t people would have been confused. Bullsh*t people wouldn’t have been able to hear them. This is negligent. You have to ask why water was not diverted by the through irrigation ditches at the request of the municipal water authority. You have to ask why the water resource commission thought the most pressing matter was “understanding impact on downstream users” by diverting water to reservoirs that serve Lahaina. This is negligent. I’m sure they will find a way to blame HE. But this tragedy could have been prevented or at least mitigated if they had competent people at the helm of the Emergency Management Agency and the water resource commission.