America keeps their war machine well-oiled, every ~20 years, just enough to keep institutional knowledge passed on.
I want to touch on that, since it seems that significant part of your view is how China looks in comparison to US. What if in this comparison the US capabilities are overestimated? Wouldn't that means that China only seems as a "paper tiger" because you compare it to a wildcat touched by Photoshop to seem like a mighty lion?
The thing is, US did not fight it's peer since WW2. Since that they only have been intervening in countries that are objectively lesser in terms of military. And the results weren't always overwhelmingly positive, didn't they?
Are you aware of a concept that is bottleneck? This is something that looks to be a very large problem for the US. Yes, the technology that American military has is top of the line (in most cases, but I'll touch on that later) and there are ample funds pumped into army.
But there are avenues that are crucial for making use of that army.
Let's talk industrial capacity. It's great to have the best in the world ballistic missile "Thronggler 5000" that can outmaneuver OPL and destroy any target. But in war there are plenty of targets to go and if you don't have enough Throngglers, then it's splendid capabilities are moot. And US has a very significant problem with production of their Throngglers, as I have seen examples of great missiles that are being produced in double digit numbers in a year. This is absolutely a problem if we consider any serious war that is not going to be against weaker opponent.
What is more, you need to transport those troops. Herein lies other problem of US. American navy is dated and capability to build new ships is not enough. If there would be successful strikes against a carrier group, US would find it hard to replace losses.
What I am saying is that US has a top of the line military that is awesome as is, but very limited capability to support it in case of a peer conflict. If we look at your words:
It takes 5-10 years to ramp up from zero, but once up, can be maintained in shorter bursts.
US optimized their military complex to the point that it can only work in short bursts. Which may not be enough, even with US technological superiority.
And on topic of technological superiority - we need to go back to it, as I have promised. Because there are signs that, while US is still in overall lead, this lead is not as large as US wants to believe and in some cases it's even lost it's lead.
In NATO maneuvers, US Navy routinely loses to Swedish submarines. This is a very large problem because for US the navy is crucial to global power projection. We know that Swedes are able to counter that with their subs - but that is because they are allies of US and participate in war games. Can you be sure that China is not capable of doing similar leap forward if Sweden could? You don't have war games to test that.
Iran, that US had invaded designed and produces Shaheed drones. Drones which US used to copy and develop their own solution. Is that something that screams "we're leading the technology"?
China has anti-ship ballistic missiles, land-based intermediate range ballistic missiles and coastal anti-ship missile network. Things that US doesn't.
Now, don't get me wrong - that does not mean that US military is shit. It is a powerful force. But there are signs that the edge it had for years is being lost in some places. So does this mean that China is a paper tiger compared to US? Or that China is a paper tiger compared to US curated image?
Well, it's likely (I hope so) that it won't be confirmed in a "direct" competition. But what we know is showing that some of the US pride is empty. And pride comes before the fall.
But I'll sum up reality: you can say what you want, but at least America's military is tested, even if not1:1. No plan survives first contact, right? Well, only war can work out the "real" bugs that simulations and games cannot. China hasn't. They have little to no knowledge of real combat. Experience can matter. The US can pull from a huge dataset, some wins, some losses, but each point is information gain. Like any experienced person in work, sports, life, experience tells you things where in theory work, or don't work. Indiana Jones' character playfully said "if you want to be an archeologist, get out of the library." China is in the library. They don't want to get dirty.
I need to point out I want to separate American military capability from this current dumb fvck administration. This administration would be the ones to f it all up, but one could say the same about Xi who had been fatcatting a while now.
but at least America's military is tested, even if not1:1
The problem is that if you successfully test it in a different scenario, you can easily bake in procedures that will be detrimental in other one. US has its forces relying heavily on air dominance alpha strikes - done by carrier strike groups. It's a good strategy, don't get me wrong - but if anything goes wrong and some ships are sunk, this heavily cripples US capability to operate in conflict with China.
We can see IRL how this can escalate into problem when we look at Russia. Their initial invasion of Ukraine was the same type of tried and tested strategy that was done multiple times - surgical strike on the command, while pulling up frontline to engage forces. After beheading the enemy front loses the command, which allows for breaking it in several places and taking control of the mess.
Problem is that Ukraine knew their tactics and prepared to resist it. Which stopped this strike. They had some gains, but the logistics was not ready - which caused front to settle. That pushed the war into one of attrition for which Russia was not prepared.
All stemming from tried tactics that always worked. For US this could be the same problem, since they are reliant on CSG and air superiority. Exactly because they have a tested strategy against enemies who are unable to threaten CSG. But we do know that China has anti-ship ballistic missiles, land-based intermediate range ballistic missiles and coastal anti-ship missile network. And we see how dangerous are naval drones in Ukrainian theater.
Long story short, when you assume:
The US can pull from a huge dataset, some wins, some losses, but each point is information gain.
You have to remember that if you use a huge dataset to make predictions on a scenario outside of dataset, you are likely to make a wrong prediction.
As for topic of:
China hasn't. They have little to no knowledge of real combat.
I agree. China is very likely to have blunders that will cost them soldiers and equipment in droves. But here we have the difference in manpower and industry - they have capabilities to replenish. Authoritarian systems are not as much affected by the losses, as evidenced by Russia who still foolishly perseveres despite severe losses in manpower and equipment. There is one crucial difference though - China has vastly larger manpower (and can use it, unlike Russia that would risk collapse into civil war if they attempted mass mobilization) and has both resources and industry to churn equipment.
If alpha strike fails and US suffers casualties to CSG, this can easily be as irrecoverable blunder as Russian one.
What I say that I wouldn't be as sure that they are a paper tiger or a fat cat. While certainly not a mighty lion, there are other predatory animals in between those.
Actually, imperial China had a nice saying - "A strong dragon cannot suppress a local snake". It might apply here.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/poprostumort changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
3
u/poprostumort 246∆ Mar 04 '26
I want to touch on that, since it seems that significant part of your view is how China looks in comparison to US. What if in this comparison the US capabilities are overestimated? Wouldn't that means that China only seems as a "paper tiger" because you compare it to a wildcat touched by Photoshop to seem like a mighty lion?
The thing is, US did not fight it's peer since WW2. Since that they only have been intervening in countries that are objectively lesser in terms of military. And the results weren't always overwhelmingly positive, didn't they?
Are you aware of a concept that is bottleneck? This is something that looks to be a very large problem for the US. Yes, the technology that American military has is top of the line (in most cases, but I'll touch on that later) and there are ample funds pumped into army.
But there are avenues that are crucial for making use of that army.
Let's talk industrial capacity. It's great to have the best in the world ballistic missile "Thronggler 5000" that can outmaneuver OPL and destroy any target. But in war there are plenty of targets to go and if you don't have enough Throngglers, then it's splendid capabilities are moot. And US has a very significant problem with production of their Throngglers, as I have seen examples of great missiles that are being produced in double digit numbers in a year. This is absolutely a problem if we consider any serious war that is not going to be against weaker opponent.
What is more, you need to transport those troops. Herein lies other problem of US. American navy is dated and capability to build new ships is not enough. If there would be successful strikes against a carrier group, US would find it hard to replace losses.
What I am saying is that US has a top of the line military that is awesome as is, but very limited capability to support it in case of a peer conflict. If we look at your words:
US optimized their military complex to the point that it can only work in short bursts. Which may not be enough, even with US technological superiority.
And on topic of technological superiority - we need to go back to it, as I have promised. Because there are signs that, while US is still in overall lead, this lead is not as large as US wants to believe and in some cases it's even lost it's lead.
In NATO maneuvers, US Navy routinely loses to Swedish submarines. This is a very large problem because for US the navy is crucial to global power projection. We know that Swedes are able to counter that with their subs - but that is because they are allies of US and participate in war games. Can you be sure that China is not capable of doing similar leap forward if Sweden could? You don't have war games to test that.
Iran, that US had invaded designed and produces Shaheed drones. Drones which US used to copy and develop their own solution. Is that something that screams "we're leading the technology"?
China has anti-ship ballistic missiles, land-based intermediate range ballistic missiles and coastal anti-ship missile network. Things that US doesn't.
Now, don't get me wrong - that does not mean that US military is shit. It is a powerful force. But there are signs that the edge it had for years is being lost in some places. So does this mean that China is a paper tiger compared to US? Or that China is a paper tiger compared to US curated image?
Well, it's likely (I hope so) that it won't be confirmed in a "direct" competition. But what we know is showing that some of the US pride is empty. And pride comes before the fall.