Thanos Thanos:
Aside from gunning down masses of unarmed Uighurs the current Chinese military is entirely untested in anything similar to actual combat. Their battle experience right now is practically non existent. Compare that to what the United States now knows both in terms of modern warfare against a similar foe to irregular combat against militants and terrorists. India, for example, doesn't seem particularly scared of China. Neither does Japan. Even the Vietnamese, who kicked China's ass in 1979 during their border war, would probably enjoy another fight with them just to watch them scramble away in defeat again after failing to penetrate even a hundred miles into Vietnamese territory.
The PLA of 2022 is far different than the PLA from 1979. Back then, they were full on believers of Soviet doctrine and thought large numbers of conscripts with low tech weapons would overwhelm the enemy. Now, the thousands of Mig-15s, Mig-17s, Mig 19s and Mig-21s that they had in the early 2000s have been replaced by much more advanced planes, and those old Cold War-era planes have been turned into drones/cruise missiles.
Likewise, Vietnam today is far different than it was in 1979. Back then, it had just come out of more than 20 years of fighting France and then the US and her allies (ROK, Australia, etc.) and their troops had years and years of combat experience. Today, just like the Chinese, that experience is gone entirely or lives on in a handful of generals and senior NCOs.
A war between China and Vietnam today would be very different than 1979. The Chinese would certainly struggle, simply because northern Vietnam, like northern India, is difficult terrain and not well-suited to mechanized warfare. However, I think they would be able to force Vietnam to the negotiating table after 3 to 6 months of hard fighting.
Thanos Thanos:
Saying the Chinese are a worse threat than the Soviets were doesn't just not compute, it's actively ridiculous. An inexperienced enemy that even it's neighbours aren't particularly frightened of poses a worse threat than the one Russia did when the Soviet military quite literally had over 40000 nuclear warheads (almost of all which were in the megatonne range) pointed at us? China has a navy that we can't even be certain has any competence in littoral military activities somehow presents a doomsday scenario to North America when it's unlikely to even present a threat to Japan, Australia, or New Zealand? This isn't real, not in the slightest.
The Chinese threat is more serious because they have the second largest economy, while the USSR was second, Japan and Germany were both nipping at its heels (the US had three times the GDP the USSR produced). By the mid-80s, the USSR was barely in the Top 5 by 1970, with Japan, Germany, France and the UK surpassing it.
The reason the US has the best equipped, highest tech armed forces on the planet is because its economy is so much larger than its rivals. Until recently, US GDP was about three times as large as the number 2 economy - Japan, and it was close to even with the entire Euro Zone.
The Soviets thought you could have guns instead of butter, and both the Chinese and Americans know you need lots of butter to pay for lots of guns.
Thanos Thanos:
The worst thing that would happen to us if a full scale collapse of relations with China happened, and it's highly doubtful that it will ever happen anyway, is economic problems. North America and Europe would clobber them in an open economic war anyway simply by banning any & all Chinese imports from being sold in our countries and depriving them of the revenue we've foolishly allowed them to generate from selling their products here. Those problems wouldn't be fatal for us the way it would be for China, not if their main and most lucrative revenue stream got shut off even for only one year. For the most part it would be a loss of convenience as the shit the Chinese make for us disappeared from store shelves. And as that crap on the shelves that comes from their is for the most part entirely non-vital to begin with it's not like lasting damage would ensue. Not when in short order most of the supply of that sort of thing can be transferred over to Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and India to make. And interruption in supply of junk items is in no way comparable to having 40K worth of nuclear warheads in a state of readiness aimed at us was.
That's why China launched the Belt and Road Initiative - to create markets for its goods. It knows that the West could kneecap it in the future, and the BRI is a long term play for global economic dominance.
And you might have been correct that cutting off all trade with China would cause some short term disruptions two decades ago, but now they have been integrated into global supply chains for more than just appliances and clothing. They are large manufacturers of drugs, electronics, auto parts, and plenty of other key items modern society needs to function. To decouple from China will take at least a decade, and as the pandemic has shown, a lot of shortages and difficulties along the way.
Thanos Thanos:
I just don't see the dire situation that you others do. The Chinese certainly aren't friends. But they're also so far away from being the obvious threat the Soviets were that regarding them that way just seems entirely pointless. The doomsday scenario just doesn't exist anymore no matter how much some people apparently believe that it does.
I agree that the situation isn't dire, but we still need to be on guard and push back against dictatorships around the world, especially when one of them has the second largest economy on the planet - and is striving to not just become the top economy, but dominate and bully everyone else too.
Thanos Thanos:
ETA: Canada's aerial role in Afghanistan was restricted to ground support/ground attack. This is probably what we'll do again in the future as it's far more likely that any new wars we get involved in will be against terrorists & militants again and not countries like China or Russia. And for the ground attack role we really don't need something as pointlessly expensive as the F-35.
Agreed - we probably would have gotten 88 Super Hornets had Boeing not stupidly poked a fight with Bombardier over the C-Series. That plane likely would have been fine for the purposes we need multi-role aircraft for future roles. Now, we didn't really have a lot of other options, as the Typhoons and Rafales are nearing the end of their lifespans.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
