Battle in the South China Sea - US Navy vs China's Navy (Minute by Minute)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
  • The battle is on in the South China Sea as Xi Jinping mobilizes naval forces against the USS Gabrielle Giffords. With both navies facing off, this video explores the potential high-stakes conflict in the South China Sea. Watch now!
    🔔 SUBSCRIBE TO GEOPOLITICO► / @geo-politico
    SOURCES: pastebin.com/Y...
    The videos are made by the same team that brings you The Infographics Show.
    All videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise noted.

ความคิดเห็น • 705

  • @markcook927
    @markcook927 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +33

    USA will not take kindly to losing a boat . You strongly under estimate USA response.

    • @mac2626
      @mac2626 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Biden wouldn’t do shit, and the whole world knows it.

  • @forMacguyver
    @forMacguyver 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +228

    Information in this video is way out of date and overly optimistic about China's naval/military prowess. Sorry guys you missed the mark on this one.

    • @MA_KA_PA_TIE
      @MA_KA_PA_TIE 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +45

      Better to prepare to fight a titan and be pleasantly surprised it's a kitten than vice versa.

    • @davidburke8682
      @davidburke8682 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +22

      I agree they are comparing the 2024 chinese navy to the 2010 American navy

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      The U.S. military said U.S. bombers or carrier strike groups sailing in the South China Sea could face a salvo of dozens, if not hundreds, of ballistic missiles designed to overwhelm its defenses, destroy critical capabilities, and sink U.S. warships into the deep sea.
      A senior US military official said that if China and the United States go to war, after the first hour, there will be little left of the US military's bases in the Indo-Pacific circle.
      A senior defense official said it is changing the U.S. appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrent capability that threatens our posture, our presence and our activities, which could lead policymakers in Washington to perceive the stakes as too high."

    • @shinchan2627
      @shinchan2627 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I know as a American you want to believe America is number 1 and nobody can defeat it... But China can and China will destroy a massive part of the US ships ... wich means the US cant maintain its power projection in the world.

    • @Stephen-vl2ky
      @Stephen-vl2ky 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

      Agreed, watching the Fujian's sea trials has been a riot. It's like the Kuznetsov all over again billowing that black smoke into the air with a tug as it's only escort, but 40 years later.

  • @CaseyRoman1
    @CaseyRoman1 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +62

    Naval Generals?🤣 That right there shows how much 'research' was actually done for this.

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      The U.S. military said U.S. bombers or carrier strike groups sailing in the South China Sea could face a salvo of dozens, if not hundreds, of ballistic missiles designed to overwhelm its defenses, destroy critical capabilities, and sink U.S. warships into the deep sea.
      A senior US military official said that if China and the United States go to war, after the first hour, there will be little left of the US military's bases in the Indo-Pacific circle.
      A senior defense official said it is changing the U.S. appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrent capability that threatens our posture, our presence and our activities, which could lead policymakers in Washington to perceive the stakes as too high."

    • @kylehomenik8775
      @kylehomenik8775 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      yeah this was shit, no knowledge of geopolitics and warfare

    • @rcgunner7086
      @rcgunner7086 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You'd think that's what the People's Liberation Army Navy has in charge. Go figure.

    • @johnw9190
      @johnw9190 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@User-1983-bi8bw I assume this was a comment and not a reply.

    • @mlblja
      @mlblja 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Yeah, that would be Admirals and Captains.

  • @mattstrandquist2148
    @mattstrandquist2148 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

    @4:00 Nope, It does NOT take TWO HOURS for POTUS to be informed that a US warship has been fired on and sunk. It takes MINUTES.

    • @mattstrandquist2148
      @mattstrandquist2148 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      4:30 Nope. It does NOT take "weeks" to respond: with US assets already in the Philippines, it takes hours AT MOST.

  • @Grendelsbane
    @Grendelsbane 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +130

    USAF just going to sit this out? No use of B2/B21 bombers to take out either ships or missile emplacements? Or no use of the Rapid Dragon system to act as a force multiplier?

    • @surfdocer103
      @surfdocer103 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      IKR

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      The U.S. military said U.S. bombers or carrier strike groups sailing in the South China Sea could face a salvo of dozens, if not hundreds, of ballistic missiles designed to overwhelm its defenses, destroy critical capabilities, and sink U.S. warships into the deep sea.
      A senior US military official said that if China and the United States go to war, after the first hour, there will be little left of the US military's bases in the Indo-Pacific circle.
      A senior defense official said it is changing the U.S. appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrent capability that threatens our posture, our presence and our activities, which could lead policymakers in Washington to perceive the stakes as too high."

    • @marro1916
      @marro1916 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      This channel makes the dumbest claims and war plans. It's like they have someone writing these that has zero idea what the U.S. has in their arsenal.

    • @SelfProclaimedEmperor
      @SelfProclaimedEmperor 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

      ​​​@@User-1983-bi8bwthe B-2 doesn't need bases in the western Pacific, it can reach Eastern china and any Chinese ship from Hawaii, as long as a refueling tanker launches with it and refuels the B-2 then return base before getting close to china while the B-2 continues.
      Also US patriot and THAAD systems will destroy most enemy missiles before they get close to bases. Patriot has shot down hypersonic missiles in Ukraine.
      Furthermore, the US now has hypersonic missiles with very long range.

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@SelfProclaimedEmperor PPT shows.

  • @christopherwestbrook3534
    @christopherwestbrook3534 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +44

    This is kinda dated. USAF long strikes are an integral part of South China Sea operations

    • @marro1916
      @marro1916 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You took that from that one channel that makes those funny ass videos. I 100% agree.

    • @olderchin1558
      @olderchin1558 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      True but not real. The USAF don't have the assets or munitions to do it. It is a future aspiration.

    • @christopherwestbrook3534
      @christopherwestbrook3534 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@olderchin1558 Are you SERIOUS - They literally have a GLOBAL STRIKE COMMAND. Holy Jeez Guy...everyone is remarking about it because the video leaves them out completely

  • @TeddyR_Official
    @TeddyR_Official 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +103

    Is it the 1800’s? This video assumes the US has no Air Force. Lol

    • @BlueBirdTactical
      @BlueBirdTactical 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Bruh! It’s in the title of the video, “US Navy v China Navy.” Not “US military v China military”

    • @TeddyR_Official
      @TeddyR_Official 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ⁠@@BlueBirdTacticalOK fine. But you know what the those aircraft carriers carry? Right, the Navy’s finest … F/A 18 Super Hornets, F-35C Lightning II, E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Command and Control aircrafts. You can’t literally get close to a carrier strike group. All the CCP PLA can do is to let it’s missiles fly. And the F-35C’s mission is to eliminate those threats first, including radar stations. The US Navy has been doing that strategy in places of conflicts, even before the Gulf wars, it’s no secret.

    • @thediggy
      @thediggy 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@bryceboy09 The navy has "Carriers" which have aircraft.

    • @BlueBirdTactical
      @BlueBirdTactical 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@thediggy the title of the video is navy v navy. The dudes comment included Air Force branch. The navy does have squadrons in carriers. So it’s strictly navy v navy.

    • @bryanhoppe1481
      @bryanhoppe1481 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      LOL at it taking 2 hours for the POTUS to be informed.
      The US would have immediately responded with an attack on the Chinese vessels.

  • @LosLS2
    @LosLS2 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +113

    This is all wrong. First of all, we have an Air Force. Second, our subs would just be shooting fish in a barrel. There is no comparison. Those 2 carriers would be on the bottom within the week. only way they take a carrier is with a sucker punch. Meaning they got to do it first. Before the littoral and the Philippine base. Once they attack, that carrier would become very hard to find, as all their satellites would go down and the US and Japan would have immediate air dominance over Japan and all the Islands.

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      The U.S. military said U.S. bombers or carrier strike groups sailing in the South China Sea could face a salvo of dozens, if not hundreds, of ballistic missiles designed to overwhelm its defenses, destroy critical capabilities, and sink U.S. warships into the deep sea.
      A senior US military official said that if China and the United States go to war, after the first hour, there will be little left of the US military's bases in the Indo-Pacific circle.
      A senior defense official said it is changing the U.S. appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrent capability that threatens our posture, our presence and our activities, which could lead policymakers in Washington to perceive the stakes as too high."
      I guess they know better than you do.

    • @algenis880
      @algenis880 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      All wrong is correct because China has a paper dragon fleet. They're unable to be in deep water. Their missile defense is non-existent, whereas sm3s can take out DF their hypersonic missiles. No challenge at all to the US

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      This just sounds like you watch too many movies because what in the fuck are you even talking about lmao.

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @Ariel-om5fh Too much dream! Get the facts straight!
      Pentagon war games have been predicting US defeat in Taiwan for years at this point. In 2018, the Pentagon ran 18 war games of a war over Taiwan with the most realistic conditions and lost all 18 of them to China.
      Assumes full Japanese support. Without this assumption, the authors admit result will be a decisive US defeat.
      Overestimated US subsonic missile capabilities
      Not including hypersonic in the game as they would be in limited numbers. For the US sure. For China, they are building them quite heavily.
      So many guys pretended they knew more than those military ranks.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @Ariel-om5fhChinese missiles can reach as far as Guam. How far out exactly do you think they'll be able to be and operate and be effective? You seem to forget American planes don't have the range like Chinese planes do. The US is simply at a disadvantage in such a theater. And what "informal regional coalition"? You seem to overestimate every SEA simply coming to US/Taiwan's aid without question. Nothing is officially, formally declared.

  • @matta5498
    @matta5498 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    (From the movie 300, Daxos being China and Leonidas being the US)
    Daxos: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
    King Leonidas: Doesn't it?
    [points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
    King Leonidas: You there, what is your profession?
    Free Greek-Potter: I am a potter... sir.
    King Leonidas: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
    Free Greek-Sculptor: Sculptor, sir.
    King Leonidas: Sculptor.
    [turns to a third soldier]
    King Leonidas: You?
    Free Greek-Blacksmith: Blacksmith.
    King Leonidas: [turns back shouting] SPARTANS! What is YOUR profession?
    Spartans: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
    King Leonidas: [turning to Daxos] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did!

  • @phillipfreely2226
    @phillipfreely2226 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    I don’t see the USA being dumb enough to lose that many ships

  • @MannsWoodlandPerspective
    @MannsWoodlandPerspective 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    According to this, not a single F35 C exists.

  • @longhorn13jdl
    @longhorn13jdl 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +29

    No one has mentioned China's soldiers' war experience . This would be their first war in a very long time.

    • @User-1983-bi8bw
      @User-1983-bi8bw 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      The U.S. military said U.S. bombers or carrier strike groups sailing in the South China Sea could face a salvo of dozens, if not hundreds, of ballistic missiles designed to overwhelm its defenses, destroy critical capabilities, and sink U.S. warships into the deep sea.
      A senior US military official said that if China and the United States go to war, after the first hour, there will be little left of the US military's bases in the Indo-Pacific circle.
      A senior defense official said it is changing the U.S. appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrent capability that threatens our posture, our presence and our activities, which could lead policymakers in Washington to perceive the stakes as too high."
      I guess they know better.

    • @m3c4nyku43
      @m3c4nyku43 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      Ah yes, because USA has a lot of experience in Afghanistan...

    • @m3c4nyku43
      @m3c4nyku43 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      And wait a second. China is bad because they're supposedly aggressive but they don't have battle experience, meanwhile USA who isn't aggressive has military experience? Hmm. Something doesn't add up.

    • @LunaLapin-ho5tk
      @LunaLapin-ho5tk 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Well, couple that with the US's lack of being able to win a war and what do you get?

    • @xiangzihua
      @xiangzihua 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      ​@@m3c4nyku43 USA has experience fighting farmers and shepherds 😂

  • @larryclark5355
    @larryclark5355 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +35

    I think you're one minded. The lattorial ships are targets only. After the sinking the USAF would start using stand-off weapons against China. The amount of weapons that could be used would probably tax their air defense forces . This would go on day and night giving them no break. At night B1s,F22s,and F35s would drop precision weapons disrupting command and control,storage and port facilities. These losses would make them pull their forces back. At the same time US subs would teach them to fear the water and remaining naval force would contribute cruise missles to the crowded skies attacking shipping and port facilities.

    • @LunaLapin-ho5tk
      @LunaLapin-ho5tk 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Why wouldn't China have sunk the US vessels the moment they entered Chinese waters? China has their own GPS system now and the US cannot hide navel assets any longer. Chinese GPS and Chinese hypersonic missiles have made navies obsolete.

    • @petersinclair3997
      @petersinclair3997 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Agree. Many presentations on the Taiwan issue don’t address taking out ports. Japan did it at Pearl Harbor. England sunk a French fleet, so Germany couldn’t used the ships WW2. Before the Spanish Armada, England made a surprise attack on a Spanish port.

    • @LunaLapin-ho5tk
      @LunaLapin-ho5tk 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You seem to forget that China is 10 years ahead of the US in hypersonic missiles and has their own GPS system and radar system. The US cannot hide their assets any longer. You fantasize about countries warring with the US as if they have no military. The US Navy is obsolete now that they are giant sitting ducks because GPS can now "see" them. The US cannot hide them any longer. China and Russia both have nuclear submarines that are as advanced if not more advanced than the US. The US pretty much sat on it's laurels since the fall of the USSR and now is paying the price.

  • @user-de2yc1xz6d
    @user-de2yc1xz6d 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

    For d US to take 5 days prior to launching a counterattack is simply unrealistic.

  • @davidburke8682
    @davidburke8682 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +61

    Who ever made this doesn’t understand how hard it is to hit a air craft carrier with a sub or anti ship missile they are insanely layered in their air and sub defense

    • @CruWiT
      @CruWiT 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      No matter how advanced it is, no air defense system is impenetrable, and when you bombard a huge object in the middle of the ocean with hypersonic missiles with speeds of Mach 6 and above, I don't think any air defense system can prevent this take will be saturated.

    • @MochaBatik
      @MochaBatik 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      This is even considering the Chinese knows what they're doing, meanwhile the US already had shit-ton of simulations where the odds are stacked against them and they're still capable of achieving a stalemate despite these odds

    • @Myungbean
      @Myungbean 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      ​@CruWiT China has not demonstrated the ability to hit moving targets with their hypersonic. Fast as they are, they still take a while to reach their targets and carriers are not going to just be sitting still. The carrier is guaranteed to be miles away from where the missile was originally targeted at.

    • @davidburke8682
      @davidburke8682 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@CruWiT every missile is hypersonic china has zero true hypersonic missiles that can change direction while maintaining a hypersonic speed and the us has already proven its possible to shoot those down and some believe we have the capability already either way u gotta be pretty new at this subject to think anyone is fielding a real hypersonic missile only America has successfully tested one

    • @CruWiT
      @CruWiT 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@davidburke8682 There are systems that can hit hypersonic missiles, but they aren't 100% guaranteed. If air defense reaches heavy oversaturation it will definitely give a deficit. Israel's iron dome was described as impenetrable, but a few hundred primitive Iranian missiles, which were moving slowly and coming from a known source and were announced before launch, were able to overcome Israel's air defense umbrella, 98% of them were destroyed, but 2% passed the air defense network and hit the targets. If even such primitive weapons can overcome such an advanced air defense system, it isn't possible for a huge pile of steel standing in the middle of the ocean to prevent all kinds of attacks from the air.

  • @ericb.4358
    @ericb.4358 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    The US Navy has had a LOT of practice running tactics against the Russian navy, both on the surface and below. What in hell makes China think they have the institutional knowledge to go up against the US Navy?? This is not just tactical knowledge but down to the granular level of sonar men, radar men, etc. who have knowledge in the form of training passed on generation after generation.
    OK, so the Chinese PLA Navy has more ships. BUT do they have better missiles, better networking and better trained crews with that institutional knowledge I mentioned above?
    Doubtful but never underestimate your enemy.
    Japan will never stand for China to take Taiwan (and likely the small Riukyu Islands near Taiwan) Japan is RAPIDLY expanding its navy and air force to counter China. Japan too is a large industrial power with advanced technology. It knows modern arms.

    • @iitianadi
      @iitianadi 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yeah not battle ready commandos noo war experience

  • @stevenmccary4058
    @stevenmccary4058 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +48

    China has more boats yes, but they also name every canoe in their waters as a naval vessel. Going by tonnage, they have 824,000 tons of boats. The US has 3.8 Million tons.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      Where are you getting your numbers? China's total naval tonnage, is just shy under 3 million. The US is at about 7.4 million. And no, they aren't naming "every canoe" a naval vessel.

    • @thomasD215
      @thomasD215 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      ​​@@Flightman453no not every canoe, but they do count every boat in there coast gaurd, as well as many militia fishing boats as part of there naval numbers. The US does not count its coast gaurd ships towards its naval tonnage or number of ships.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@thomasD215 That’s not true at all in the slightest. The Chinese Coast Guard and their Maritime Militia fleet are both their separate entities. If the PLAN counted both Coast Guard ships and maritime militia ships their navy ship count would probably be 200+ ships higher lmao. It’s because they have a lot of auxiliary ships and missile boats/corvettes that add to that number because they produced a lot of those smaller boats at the time but their doctrine has changed. That’s why they’ve been slowly retiring those smaller missiles boats/corvettes or giving them to the coast guard as they’re rapidly building larger and more lethal surface combatants.

    • @snoopysnoops007
      @snoopysnoops007 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@thomasD215 Ummmm this is more about production rates surely as many ships will be destroyed on both sides. One chinese shipyard manufactures more ships than all of America's shipyards combined. This will be like Ukraine where the Ukranians cannot keep pace with Russia's military industrial complex production rates

    • @live2av8
      @live2av8 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@snoopysnoops007 lol

  • @sethstriker
    @sethstriker 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +35

    You civilians ALWAYS assume that the CCP is competent in war, all the while ignoring what history has to show us about what's actually happens when the CCP tries its hand at combat. While it is never wise to underestimate your opponent, I think that if the CCP ever gets froggy, that the world would eat well on frog legs.

    • @theKnightsofGod
      @theKnightsofGod 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      The Korean war?

    • @TheBoaty813
      @TheBoaty813 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      A civilian here. But I worked on our mighty warships for 20 years. People really underestimate our power.

    • @theKnightsofGod
      @theKnightsofGod 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @TheBoaty813 in a war, an enemy should never be underestimated. We, Americans, should know that from the various wars we fought. Overconfidence costed us many in the past

    • @mtmadigan82
      @mtmadigan82 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      ​@@theKnightsofGod75 years ago, great example.

    • @mtmadigan82
      @mtmadigan82 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@TheBoaty813to be fair if you've never seen it first hand and don't have any connections or interest in the military, it's understandable. But once you see first hand any of our branches combat capacity in person, video or written description do it no justice. Thanks for your work by the way, anytime the navy gave us a ride I've always been amazed by their ships and subs. Its so overwhelming in size and complexity, just looking around my brain locks up just trying to figure where do you even start planning and building something like that.

  • @MA_KA_PA_TIE
    @MA_KA_PA_TIE 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +74

    Uh oh, they touched the boats. Big mistake.

    • @jskillet8912
      @jskillet8912 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

      Quack bang out!

    • @jpd4627
      @jpd4627 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +19

      DON'T TOUCH THE BOATS!!

    • @shawnhoebeck7784
      @shawnhoebeck7784 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      A reference to"FIndIng 23:22 emo

    • @feigned53
      @feigned53 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @mandatoryfunday

    • @CountryLifestyle2023
      @CountryLifestyle2023 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      I see someone follows Habitaul Linecroser

  • @isaacteo4063
    @isaacteo4063 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +32

    The new Fujian class carrier is meant to used as a barbarcue instead of an attack platform.

    • @CH3353N1NJ45
      @CH3353N1NJ45 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Chinese Barbecue, drools

    • @Orcalein7367
      @Orcalein7367 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@CH3353N1NJ45 I'd rather have Korean BBQ ... with the side dishes ! Lol

  • @idiocracyorthedevil
    @idiocracyorthedevil 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    Nice graphics but a weak analysis. US subs would be first on the scene.

  • @IOSARBX
    @IOSARBX 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

    GeoPolitico, I really enjoyed watching this, so I hit the like button!

  • @Bfizzle62
    @Bfizzle62 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    The USAF, Japan, and Australia are just sitting this one out I guess

    • @greenktoo
      @greenktoo 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Australia would be the first to help us.

  • @jimjefftube
    @jimjefftube 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +34

    Are you aware that the US has an Air Force?

    • @m3c4nyku43
      @m3c4nyku43 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Where would they fly from?

    • @ObiWanShinobi917
      @ObiWanShinobi917 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

      ​@@m3c4nyku43B2 and B1 bombers can fly from U.S. mainland easily.
      If the U.S. has aircraft carriers in the sea, it means they also have F-35s, and F22s + F15s could reach the area easily from nearby airbases with use of refueling tankers.

    • @captin3149
      @captin3149 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      @@m3c4nyku43 The bases from S Korea, Phillipines and Japan maybe?

    • @m3c4nyku43
      @m3c4nyku43 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@captin3149 It was all addressed in the video. The ones in Philippines would be destroyed as I remember.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      ⁠@@ObiWanShinobi917You’re gonna refuel planes in a heavily contested environment? lmao

  • @TheBestDog
    @TheBestDog 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +27

    What’s the name of the narrator? He has almost as many channels as Simon.

    • @thinkitaintillegalyet
      @thinkitaintillegalyet 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

      The C.I.A. they put out way too much content to not be an organization

    • @cptmike05
      @cptmike05 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      I think it’s an ai voice

    • @mikebar42
      @mikebar42 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      Read above... 😅

    • @americanadreaming
      @americanadreaming 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      ​@@thinkitaintillegalyet Lol, bud, that's standard AI that any Joe 6-pack can use.

    • @thinkitaintillegalyet
      @thinkitaintillegalyet 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @americanadreaming that's used for almost all of the big American TH-cam channels that just so happen to be watched by a large audience of Americans

  • @user-vh5di2gl9b
    @user-vh5di2gl9b 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Yeah, sometime before the 12 hr point big black planes are going to be taking off from a little base in Missouri. Remember Dolittle’s raid? This will be bigger.

  • @macmcgee5116
    @macmcgee5116 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +31

    No mention of stealth fighters/bombers or the US "Rapid Dragon" anti ship missile barrage?

    • @Myungbean
      @Myungbean 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Yeah, wildly unrealistic response. I think the idea was to restrict the response purely to the Navy, even then, no SSGN strikes or various targets etc. I dunno how valid this is.

    • @macmcgee5116
      @macmcgee5116 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@Myungbean I also am not sure if rapid dragon is beyond the testing phase. If so... Maybe that is why it was omitted.

    • @SelfProclaimedEmperor
      @SelfProclaimedEmperor 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Also don't forget the long range hypersonic weapon which is already in service

    • @paulwilson6614
      @paulwilson6614 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      As well as B1Bs from the US main land running either anti ship missiles taking out the Chinese carriers or making runs on the ground base missle sites. As for the Chinese subs, they didn't even mention the US anti sub abilities including helos and the Poseidon. I feel like they missed quite a bit on the research on this one.

    • @architecturehappy
      @architecturehappy 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@macmcgee5116the difference between testing and raining hell in realtime could be days if they wanted it to, they are smart and have already proven it works, now they are just stockpiling 😎

  • @freddiemercury2075
    @freddiemercury2075 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Well... I am no expert in US armed force doctrine but I am sure their navy dont fight alone. The air force and the Marines would join the party too. Plus if china were to start the fight it would make nearly the whole world turn on them.

  • @rayrae1651
    @rayrae1651 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    The paper dragon has nothing for the super power. Winnie the Pooh knows this.

  • @valianttmt8044
    @valianttmt8044 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    It wouldn’t be an Ohio class BALLISTIC submarine. It would most likely be a Virginia class attack boat.
    BTW who the hell came up with this scenario?

    • @thewaywardwind548
      @thewaywardwind548 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Wouldn't be just "a Virginia class attack boat." Would be several. AND since the Ohio subs have sonar and torpedoes -- and are VERY QUIET -- they could be exceptional trump cards to back up the Virginias since their nukes wouldn't be in play.

    • @valianttmt8044
      @valianttmt8044 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@thewaywardwind548 can’t argue with that 👍

  • @thanemlesstrue-arrow5724
    @thanemlesstrue-arrow5724 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    I think a few things are different from what would happen in reality. Firstly, the ship to ship naval battle with aircraft carriers wouldn't be as close as portrayed here. US would cream China with better sailors and better equipment. Secondly, once the US committed I think allies like Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and Australia would be all out in their support from the get-go. The allies would much rather fight alongside a strong US Naval Fleet over one that had been depleted due to lack of support. Thirdly, there would be long range attacks on Chinese ports, and the US would make sure to sink the two Chinese carriers to assert dominance over the Pacific.
    The wild card would be India. We in India tend to be passive in war, so I don't expect any action from us. But we might be opportunistic and pounce if we sense a weakness in China.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You seem to fantasize and significantly overestimate every single country within the region just simply fighting alongside the US and for Taiwan. Doesn't work that way. Like India? Really? lmao

  • @WinVisten
    @WinVisten 19 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    NEVER touch America's boats.

  • @issacrice4025
    @issacrice4025 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    These guys have totally lost it
    Just throwing out gaslighting crap with wildly inaccurate info
    Sad😢

  • @isaacbrown4506
    @isaacbrown4506 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Doesn't speed not exactly matter on an interception course? I don't think our missiles fly as fast as a ballistic missile outside the atmosphere. Just saying

  • @stephenbrown937
    @stephenbrown937 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Considering the Phillipenes were once a US territory including the Spratley Islands and the military alliances we maintain with the Phillipenes I think US has every right to be there and know exactly where Phillipenes territory begins and ends as thousands of Americans died for that territory.

  • @rhyanjill
    @rhyanjill 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    1. Where the hell are the US air forces and stealth bombers here?
    2. The US has access to 9 military bases in the Philippines. Especially in the Cagayan (northern Philippines) and Palawan. China wouldn’t get past Balabac islands without being blockaded by America and the Philippines.
    3. Forget the Lombok strait which will be guarded by Australia and Indonesia, China wouldn’t even get past the Balabac strait, which America was given access to by the Philippines, or anything beyond the Sulu sea. American access to Cagayan would also make it even harder for China to do anything in the Pacific. What do you think the first island chain was for in the first place?
    4. The Malacca and Sunda straits will NOT be blockaded with the help of the Philippines. That’s India and Australia’s role, or Indonesia if they feel like it. In any case, I doubt Indonesia will allow China to do anything in their waters at all.
    5. You failed to mention smaller Pacific island nations that China is trying to bring into its fold. They will play a crucial role whether they side with China or the US. Why? Because of that little thing called GUAM which was never mentioned here.

    • @Orcalein7367
      @Orcalein7367 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Answer to # 1 : They are "stealth" so you shouldn't be able to see them.

  • @dm9078
    @dm9078 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

    Did they say Naval Generals?

    • @WillyWithAwhY
      @WillyWithAwhY 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      In China, their navy is a part of their army.

  • @recondax
    @recondax 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

    I would like to say a couple of things.
    There are several facts not correct. Taiwan has a new president, the Ronald Reagan would not be the only aircraft carrier in the area, and as someone pointed out, there are several military bases scattered in the Philippines.
    The very big issue many have pointed out is the USAF not being active. The USAF and other Air Forces in the region would be very active dropping missiles within days, if not hours of the initial attack.
    Another overlooked item is the US Navy's "ghost" fleet/s. They may not be top of the line but those ships could be slightly modernized and then go to the war zone.
    On the Chinese side, there are a few issues, that I believe, not gotten right. The Type 001 and 002 aircraft carriers do not have a good air wing units aboard them at this time. If they do get good aircraft units aboard, the design of flight desk seriously hampers the combat load of the aircraft.
    The ski jump places a limitation on how much fuel and weapons the aircraft can take off with. Lots of fuel to spend time in the air but only have a few rockets. If you go heavy on the ordinance, you will only have only a very limited time in the air.
    Last item on this comment is the needed support ships for the Type 001 and 002. One of those support ships would be a tug boat to get the carrier back to the port when, not if, the carrier breaks down, another would be a tanker to supply all the different fuels needs, and another would would be the regular supply ship.

  • @PAUL-em4tj
    @PAUL-em4tj หลายเดือนก่อน

    Biden still Thought Gabriel Gifford was on a Space ship. 😂

  • @robertchall4592
    @robertchall4592 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Most of this is a absurdly incorrect and shows a glaring lack of understanding of military doctrine and combined arms battle!

  • @THOMPSON8787
    @THOMPSON8787 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    Chinese bots in the comments are too obvious 😂😂..at least say something different each time you comment

    • @Orcalein7367
      @Orcalein7367 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You mean "Flightman453" , right ?!?

  • @thadbeyer4166
    @thadbeyer4166 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I no expert, but we have F22’s, F35’s, and A-10’s, that can strike off the coast of the Philippines into the south China sea. We don’t have to wait just for navy. I’ve seen them there myself. If you think an A10 is only a tank killer, can you imagine what it would do to the deck of a carrier?

  • @tommylewis8457
    @tommylewis8457 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    This seems to be narrow in scope. Alot of resources the U.S has at its disposal was omitted. This scenario is lacking. If we were attacked the response would be much quicker. Also the numbers of ships China has is immaterial they are all smaller less capable ships. They also have inherent issues with their aircraft carriers. Like fielding less aircraft and over all performance.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      None of Chinese main surface combatants are "small" or "less capable".

    • @tommylewis8457
      @tommylewis8457 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@Flightman453 The simple fact that the US fleet is smaller in number but more than double in tonnage is really the only thing needed to prove that Chinas navy is compromised of smaller, less capable ships. Their two existing aircraft carriers that are in service, combined would still only carry as many air craft as a single Nimitz class carrier. They are not nuclear powered so they have less endurance and less range.
      The Chinese Navy is a paper tiger. They are also less capable because they have less experience and are untested. The only real world conflict they have participated in is harassing fishing vessel and vessels from smaller neighboring countries. They do not have the means to project power. Their ships defense is largely dependent on costal defense and the hopes they can intercept US aircraft with their new stealth wich is also less capable than it's US counter parts. Maybe you can get some one else to buy the hype China is trying to sell but it's not going to be any one who actually keeps up with what's going on.

  • @mikehankins4513
    @mikehankins4513 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Biden would be in his office deciding what sprinkles to get on his ice cream.

  • @stephenhaas376
    @stephenhaas376 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    China’s first aircraft carrier was a converted Ukrainian Casino ship.
    The second aircraft carrier with a copy of the first

  • @chrissschwehr5911
    @chrissschwehr5911 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The scenario isn't realistic. Assets from the U.S. Air Force were completely forgotten F-15 assets from Kadena AB in Okinawa and Marine fighters operating close to Taiwan from Japanese bases could be used easily along with strategic bombers flown into Anderson AB, Guam loaded with anti-shipping missiles combined with conventional munitions loaded on our B-2 and B-1 bombers would prove deadly to Chinese ships....they could also remove the threat of the artificial islands the Chinese have built up over the last few years....Add all of those assets and the Chinese wouldn't stand a chance.

  • @blackbelt2000
    @blackbelt2000 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    If india (who has border disputes w/chyna) could be convinced to join the fight then chyna would be forced to fight a 2-front war. They would have to choose to allocate resources to the navy to fight in Taiwan waters or ground forces to fight India. I doubt that would happen as both seem to enjoy the status quo of just disputing.

    • @CruWiT
      @CruWiT 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      In this scenario, war doesn't spread to the mainland both side, only in sea and naval bases. If India attacks China's mainland, China's response will be very harly, and it shouldn't be forgotten that India has its own internal problems and problems with almost all of its neighbors.

    • @blackbelt2000
      @blackbelt2000 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@CruWiT hmmm....true, true

    • @MochaBatik
      @MochaBatik 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@CruWiTChina has its OWN insurgency problems as well

    • @CruWiT
      @CruWiT 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@MochaBatik But China has an autocratic, oppressive one-party rule and has more than 400 million security cameras etc. It is extremely easy to control the population, but India has a multi-party system and political divisions, and there are millions of people living in rural areas who don't even have an ID Card.

    • @MochaBatik
      @MochaBatik 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      But India only has to keep its eye on China and the latter has made enemies with virtually almost every of its neighboring countries.

  • @primitivestudio1
    @primitivestudio1 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I disagree with this assessment. Totally disregard’s USA assets. And fact we use long range missiles too. On top that our subs would be early in game

  • @markadaza9940
    @markadaza9940 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    West Taiwan being West Taiwan again..

  • @masonnorman1374
    @masonnorman1374 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The response to someone touching our boats is not accurate in that it was even slightly proportional

  • @jasonariola6363
    @jasonariola6363 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I recant what I said about the congressional woman from Arizona and naming a ship. She is in fact a U.S. Navy person who served honorably.

  • @poseidon1641
    @poseidon1641 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    stop saying "south-china sea" ... it's Asean Sea!

  • @Dra741
    @Dra741 15 วันที่ผ่านมา

    That's why subic bay is designed to be evacuated and they're doing island hopping campaign with our aircraft landing at other different positions out of the range of chinese missiles

  • @matthewmonzillo3141
    @matthewmonzillo3141 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Couple of a-10 hornets flying over my head right now

  • @MarkHurlow-cf2ix
    @MarkHurlow-cf2ix 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The US Navy has a limited amount of especially equipped F-35’s to defeat SAM missiles sites because they are 5th generation stealth armed with anti radiation missiles and air to air to shape the battle field.

  • @user-jr1xg7vu1u
    @user-jr1xg7vu1u 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    You don’t understand that arias of South China Sea and Philippine Sea is international route of any shipping vessel. And US. Is an Alliance of Philippine. Tell your friend China to back off.

  • @jeromeaurelio6692
    @jeromeaurelio6692 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    You just forgot that the whole Philippines will be a US base in case of war. Currently there are multiple US-Ph base being build on different islands

  • @architecturehappy
    @architecturehappy 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    This is hilariously childish in understanding the U.S. military capabilities and clearly produced by a pro-China sympathizer. I’ll just hit the biggest oversights and not give away the juicy details of the curb stomping the US would bring.
    1. War experience
    2. Logistics experience
    3. Air Force
    4. Anti-air, radar and targeting, stealth, stand-off weapons

  • @nataneliasschwenk9308
    @nataneliasschwenk9308 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Biden would take a nap.

    • @marro1916
      @marro1916 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Trump keeps sleeping and shitting his pants in court.

    • @Bob1171942
      @Bob1171942 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      At least trump is mentally competent. At least he's AWARE he's shitting his pants. He would still come up with a plan and actually support the military and not have restrictions in place that would hinder military leadership WHILE shitting his pants. Biden on the other hand would probably wander off to the presidential kitchen for some ice cream cause we know how much he loves ice cream.

    • @awjames1121
      @awjames1121 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Agrees biden is sleeping since he takes office until now,,,???...

  • @sabastion642
    @sabastion642 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    What about americas long range bombers stealth aircraft and other weapons/ systems that dominate everything not including nuclear that is another fight altogether

  • @AlexisLopez-pb8ms
    @AlexisLopez-pb8ms 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I think you give China too much credit

    • @marro1916
      @marro1916 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Way the fuck too much and this channel doesn't know the U.S.A.F. exists.

  • @UNCLE.SAM69162
    @UNCLE.SAM69162 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I doubt china would attack😂😂😂 there rocket force is full of corruption... using water as fuel😂😂😂 what a joke xi keep on purging there rocket force

    • @WarH
      @WarH หลายเดือนก่อน

      Poo man doesn’t know his right hand from his left .

  • @dobbsbld
    @dobbsbld หลายเดือนก่อน

    Total output Win’s Wars not incremental band-aid patches,it’ll take total commitment …

  • @VRG_HQ
    @VRG_HQ 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    It’s closer to 45 knots …. Real number is classified… but I know it hauls balls

  • @sampacheco7757
    @sampacheco7757 16 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    The president finds out 2 hours later😂😂😂this video is chinese click bait.....I love it! It's so stupid😂

  • @jaimeconcepcion
    @jaimeconcepcion 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It is free to dream. Let the dreamer entertain himself with his dreams.

  • @competitionglen
    @competitionglen 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Our naval numbers are pathetic atm but our Collins class subs, tho old, are still capable platform and would be useful in this conflict. Also, we would be hitting from a different direction from the US navy.

  • @scotttrotman9931
    @scotttrotman9931 2 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Day 1, b21 raider takes out type-055 cruser , China "admits" there attack was an accident and promptly apologize or face removel off the face of the planet

  • @karatedad71
    @karatedad71 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Agree with some of this video but I disagree with most of it. It doesn't take into account China is not battle hardened, and hasn't fought a war in decades. I don't think the air battle is a stalemate either. Also, it doesn't touch on our Sub forces much. Our subs would reek havoc on Chinas fleet. That bit where it mentions the Swedish sub getting close to the Reagan. Swedish subs are loads better than the Chinese, and so are their sailors. It was entertaining to watch as always.

    • @jacklouie8096
      @jacklouie8096 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Too much TH-cam general

  • @brendangriffin1791
    @brendangriffin1791 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Biden has to remember to change his diaper first

  • @ghelmet2701
    @ghelmet2701 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I love how mother nature is not involved

  • @erichahn5665
    @erichahn5665 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Haven't you guys heard of the AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile)? These pack a 1,000 pound warhead and can be fired by the Super Hornets, B-1s plus all of the destroyers, as they can be launched by the Mk41 vertical launch tubes.
    The US would lob these in from standoff range and make a real mess of the CCP fleet.

  • @PoohSeaFresh
    @PoohSeaFresh 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

    Paper tiger goofy ahh Army 😂😂😂🤭🤭🤭🤣🤣🤣

  • @Dra741
    @Dra741 15 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Taiwan, it has large numbers and batteries of anti shipping missiles that can be fired from land

  • @ReturntoActs
    @ReturntoActs 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This assumes a myopic scenario where the conflict will be narrowed down in the South China Sea. Its the 21st century and much of the conflict will take place in the US backyard.

  • @mikey92362
    @mikey92362 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Wait a second here....we have a warship, armed with guns, called the Gabrielle Giffords?
    WTF? That's just wild.

  • @makesaveinccomm
    @makesaveinccomm 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I think its shameful if US lost any carrier or lost any Man on the ship... because US has all the advance toyss.....

  • @chrissschwehr5911
    @chrissschwehr5911 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    First of all, we don't have 472 ships available for combat.....We have less than 300. And 40% of our submarine fleet is either under repair or awaiting repair.

  • @repapips8774
    @repapips8774 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    So US and PH air defense systems, mid range super sonic cruise missiles and radar systems to detect any attack were not used to defend subic bay base? Hmmm... 🤔

  • @stevenbarden8466
    @stevenbarden8466 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Not this creators greatest work.

  • @jeffcroy-im5rq
    @jeffcroy-im5rq 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    They're missing a lot of things on this episode. variables

  • @jordanbwaugh7142
    @jordanbwaugh7142 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    My opinion is that USA and allies send Philippines a clean up crew for diesel and guard long lang poised to strike if an attempt diesel is far more damaging than oil

  • @jasonariola6363
    @jasonariola6363 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    America needs to be worried about the UAE and Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦

  • @ardriacrawford
    @ardriacrawford หลายเดือนก่อน

    I would assume that if Taiwan fights with the US they would declare independence and he probably would end up with a US base of some kind on the island

  • @entertexthere1127
    @entertexthere1127 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    This is so outdated. First, there's no more US base in Subic Bay, there are 9 new EDCA bases (Philippines controlled) US base in the Philippines. Second, Philippines has now more than just patrol boats, just last week alone BRP Jose Rizal a guided missile frigate sinked a chinese made ship in South China Sea. Now you know.

  • @nod00071
    @nod00071 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    Biden? The guy who is pooping his pants? Okay yeah sure

    • @michaelreyes-ih7vq
      @michaelreyes-ih7vq 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      sorry trump is the one in depends

    • @nod00071
      @nod00071 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@michaelreyes-ih7vq Okay sure

  • @brianmarsh6592
    @brianmarsh6592 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    You left out Russian military, plus the US Air Force completely in this scenario at the very least. They are wary of each other but both want the US damaged plus the possibility of nuclear weapons. I hope we never find out what would happen in the real world

  • @adamalmanza2545
    @adamalmanza2545 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The only thing I get out of your videos lately is your support for the Biden campaign. That's your prerogative, but I'm of the opinion that this show shouldn't be about politics masqueraded under a geopolitical context that has transcended over multiple US administrations, regardless of politial party holding office.

  • @anthonygaming9227
    @anthonygaming9227 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The US would not try and take over the SCS, they would be content with launching air attacks from land bases and subs, large surface assets would be kept at safe distances in a more limited fight like in this video.

    • @petersinclair3997
      @petersinclair3997 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Go so far as to hit China’s military shipping ports?

  • @damongraham1398
    @damongraham1398 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I am a fan of the Freedom class LCS. You forgot to mention that LCS has the Longbow Hellfire missiles. Do you really think it will take Biden 2 hours to be informed of the attack of the Independence class LCS? Depending on the platform that carried out the attack on the LCS. A retaliation attack should take less then an hour. If it was a land based missile then it will take about as long as you stated in the video. I would think a long range bomber could attack either those Chinese occupied islands or the warship that attacked the LCS.

    • @JohnSmith-td7vv
      @JohnSmith-td7vv 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Biden would be informed with in minutes
      It’s just would take Biden 2h to process the idea of going to the toilet.

  • @JayRNaylor
    @JayRNaylor 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Can always tell when an analyst is baloney - they think Biden's making decisions.

  • @jimmycelestial2805
    @jimmycelestial2805 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The B21 raiders, B1 and B2 and B52.
    Did not participate.

  • @Nordy941
    @Nordy941 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    LCS is extremely weak ship. Any attack from any PLA Navy ship would likely result in the LCS sinking.
    Even a small type 056A covert could sink and LCS since it Carrie’s 4 anti ship missiles.

  • @aureliodinaguit1645
    @aureliodinaguit1645 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    that is one on one scenario..many players will enter..India will also enter and the rest of Nato..

  • @dierbloodrose5178
    @dierbloodrose5178 25 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    This is an extremely Pessimistic view😅

  • @gianniminicucci7462
    @gianniminicucci7462 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    most normal people know that china would last 4 days, max. oh well , back to the stone age..

  • @goattygoat9489
    @goattygoat9489 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I was confident the US would do fine until you reminded me that Biden is the president.

  • @studiesinflux1304
    @studiesinflux1304 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I think if the attack goes against a land base like 8:39, this story would eventually end with an escalation rather than a ceasefire.
    If the Houthi drone strikes drastically increased commercial shipping insurance rates around the Red Sea, I can imagine starting the biggest sea battle since WWII would raise the price of shipping to and from China for a long time and destroy business deals, ceasefire or not.
    China would lose so much business (tariffs, higher insurance, investors packing up and going elsewhere). One example is that the battle would force many governments to immediately remove Chinese apps from mobile app stores as part of sanctions (like the Chinese video games that very often are top 20 in revenue on Android store, TikTok, etc). Many western aligned countries would have an excuse to pull all the remaining Chinese electronics from store shelves (or at least put on a fear campaign to convince consumers to stop buying them). There’s also a good chance Temu will not be able to compete on price anymore either if its shipping costs are tripled.
    I assume for humanitarian reasons food, solar panels, and other essentials may end up exempt from a lot of the sanctions temporarily, but they would lose access to trade higher profit margin goods.
    The regime would either be overthrown or have their economy crash and become a shadow of their former selves if they surrendered after day 60. Therefore I think they are more likely to escalate the conflict to keep relevant.

    • @Flightman453
      @Flightman453 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You watch too many movies.

  • @sigh_of_the_times
    @sigh_of_the_times 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    great cartoon but noy buying the turn out

  • @mikehernandez2064
    @mikehernandez2064 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    How could people say they own water nobody owns the sea play God and whoever you believe in cuz once you die the water stays there so the water doesn't belong to anybody the c is for everybody

    • @kurthaas4331
      @kurthaas4331 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Ah the rainbow coalition