Can industrial output decide US v China war?

[@Binkov]

Sponsored by World of Warships! Register to receive 500 doubloons, 1.5M Credits, Free choice of USS Phoenix, Japanese cruiser Kuma, French battleship Courbet and Italian battleship Dante Alighieri or the HMS Wakeful after you complete 10 battles, and 7 days premium time when you use code BRAVO and click here → wo.ws/3SSWFo2 Applicable to new users only. #worldofwarships #advertisement

[@davidford3115]

World of Warships often collaborates with Azur Lane. The Research ships listed below are WoW designs incorporated in the Azur Lane. PR1: HMS Neptune(CL), HMS Monarch(BB), IJN Ibuki(CA), IJN Izumo(BB), KMS Roon(CA), FFNF Saint Louis(CA) PR2: USS Seattle(CL), USS Georgia(BB), IJN Kitakaze(DD), IJN Azuma(CB), KMS Fredrich de Grosse(BB), MNF Gascogne(BB) PR3: HMS Cheshire(CA), HMS Drake(CA), KMS Maniz(CL), KMS Odin(BB), FFNF Champaign(BB) PR4: USS Anchorage(CA), IJN Hakuryuu(CV), KMS Agir(CB), KMS August von Parceval(CV), RN Marco Polo(BB) PR5: HMS Plymouth(CL), KMS Prince Rupprecht(BC), PLAN Harbin(CL), SN Chkalov(CV), FFNF Brest(CB) PR6: USS Kearsarge(BBV), IJN Shimanto(CL), KMS Felix Shultz(DD), KMS Hindenburg(CA), MNF Flandre(BB) PR7: Coming Soon!

[@molonianmediacenter6787]

Submarines are the gameplay equivalent of cancer for World of Warships. They killed my interest in the game and this video.

[@dansicklesmissingleg1841]

​@molonianmediacenter6787 kinda sad that you let arbitrary numerical values in a video game determine what you can or can't watch on KZbin

[@snizami]

Since "only real 🕊️ can bring us all together", can you please cover the fundamental unsustainability of ongoing arms races and wars seeing as these armies simply cannot be decarbonized in any sane outlook. It's insane how hardly anybody addresses that horrifying truth.

[@ventusprime]

one note old large chip comsumes more power , bigger battery and reduces the range , tesla has the sma problem with self drawing cars

[@Yakiro255]

I'm shocked at the incredible difference in quality between Chinese topic comments and Russian topic comments. Wonder why that is...

[@yopyop3241]

I think a lot of wumaos are Chinese who went to college or grad school in the West. They tried to get jobs that would sponsor them for visas, but they were deemed unworthy. Now they’re stuck in the crappy job of wumao, dreams crushed. Their fervor is driven by their vendetta at being personally rejected. Also, many of the English-proficient Russians have left Russia.

[@torlekjpec5708]

You are asking the right question.

[@tanhaoze]

@@yopyop3241 You r everywhere

[@definitelyfrank9341]

I honestly struggle to see any difference. In Chinese comment sections, I find: "made in china crap. just like there other products" and in Russian comment sections: "more russian junk. i doubt it could shoot down anything"

[@binbi8177]

If the outcome of a war was determined by comparison of numbers, the war in Afghanistan would not have lasted 20 years.

[@TheZinmo]

The "war" was over quickly. What lasted 20 years was a violent occupation. There is a difference.

[@jamesn0va]

If you make the same argument but highlight Japan instead, it looks good.

[@bubs8070]

Big difference between conventional war and guerilla war

[@hamzamahmood9565]

Big difference between winning and ruling. U.S. doesn't have the ability nor the interest to occupy mainland China forever, but it can sure defeat China in any battle anywhere.

[@mikael5938]

so true Talibans won with no industry at all. Just hardcore warriors.

[@tonykriss1594]

You are way too optimistic on how fast and how much weapon production would expand. We don't know much about China but in US we know it's definitely not the case. Modern weapon systems are way more sophisticated than WWII counterparts and most of them require highly specialized expertise which US does not have enough and won't be able to train more fast enough. Congress have been trying to up shipbuilding capacity of surface combatants and nuclear subs for years but now they are told it can't be done even with the money they throw at ship yards. F-15EX was supposed to be a cheap and fast supplement to at that time troubled F-35 project. But now with F-35 finally well on its track, Boeing still delivers fewer F-15EX every year than Russian delivers Su-57 which itself is already a joke. 5000 planes production in 4th year? That's unless Willie Wonka decides to tip his toe in aeroindustry.

[@EvaExplores-x2x]

yeah good luck recruiting US housewives and grandmas into weapon factory to make more F-35s. This generation don't even know where a pencil comes from

[@yutakago1736]

USA won World War 2 because their industry output was No. 1. Durig WW2, for every tank destroyed, aircraft shot down and ammo used, US industry can easily replace them in days. This is not the case now, sending ammo to Ukraine is slow because the industry output cannot keep up with the rate of ammo used. There is possibilities that some raw material for the weapons also need to get from China.

[@jackforman561]

agreed, but on the other hand, China has major deficiencies in oil, gas, food - most raw materials really. If the imports are stopped - which is not that hard given US allies in the region, the Chinese nation has mere months before collapsing

[@nutellacreep]

US has been stockpiling weapons for 50-70 years....thousands of Tomahawk missiles, hundreds of HIMARS launchers, etc. Even if it doesn't build anything for 20-30 years, it'll still have a material advantage. Also, China's industrial base is because it has the USA as their biggest customer. WWII US did not have Japan as their biggest industrial customer...

[@zacklewis342]

The US is technologically superior, in many cases by half a century. That's how it wins wars now. China can't defend against stealth bombers and nuclear attack subs, period.

[@nazcamain]

@@nutellacreep The US admits it would largely run out of ammo or be critically short (unable to continue projecting power) within 2 weeks of war breaking out with China. The US dropped 13 billion kg of conventional explosives in WW2. That's ~70 million himars gmlrs and 15 million tomahawk block 5s (I'm using the two weapon platforms you mentioned). The US produces 7500 gmlrs per year and 58 tomahawk missiles. Even if they were able to increase production (they wouldn't be able to) it'd cost $12 trillion for the himars missiles and $29 trillion for the tomahawks. To think we have anywhere close to those amounts on hand is foolish.

[@nutellacreep]

@@nazcamain GMLRS and Tomhawks are expensive stand-off weapons. If we are to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the WW2 bombs are more similar to cheaper JDAM bombs. But JDAMs have some degree of guidance, so much less of them are needed compared to WW2 type weapons. I mean, you're basically saying WW2 USA can defeat modern USA. It might be true, but I'm not so sure if it is true.

[@BonejanglesTV]

Reading these comments, I'm getting one major feeling. The American public vastly underestimates China. We did the same thing with Japan during WWII, which turned out to be a grueling, 4 year long grind in some of the worst conditions imaginable against an incredibly determined and capable enemy. However, unlike Japan of the 1940s, China is an industrial powerhouse with the possible ability to match or at least compete with US war production. A war between China and the US would be disastrous for both sides.

[@dominuslogik484]

We underestimated Japan? A nation that was inferior in every respect militarily and never stood a chance from the beginning? If anything we overestimated Japan and hammered them harder than anyone would have expected to be possible in the 1940s to wage a war on the other side of the planet to the scale that we did. For God's sake during one naval engagement 9 u.s aircraft carriers deployed 300 attack aircraft against a single Japanese battleship which was insane overkill for that time.

[@dominuslogik484]

I will note however that China is a very different beast militarily but in a full on shooting war between the two nations it would be largely one sided because China can't project power far from its own borders militarily and they would need to be careful of their neighbors whom they have spent decades pissing off

[@josephguo6256]

wrong, only for one side. Guess which one?

[@josefcibulka2198]

@@dominuslogik484 Мы им поможем, вобще давно ждем термоядерной перестрелки. Всь русский народ мечтает о термоядерной войне с Западам. Учитыва плотность населения размен будет 1 к 10. Запад будет уничтожен.

[@hughmungus2760]

the american public is still uber butthurt over losing in afghanistan and now losing against Yemen.

[@Demontoastslayer]

The Electronics needed for simple drones are available in the US, just not the most advanced microchips. I could imagine texas instruments turning their calculators into flight computers 😂

[@MrLougarou1000]

Imagine trying to go across the planet against the largest Navy, army and the largest drone manufacturing corporation on Earth with 70 year old boats and some flying calculators. I suggest that keep those calculators and add it up again.

[@wheneggsdrop1701]

Except Texas Instruments makes missiles for the DoD, like the AGM 88 HARM and Javelin.

[@MrLougarou1000]

@@wheneggsdrop1701 research dong fengs. Analysts say that this missile has rendered aircraft carriers as useless. It's a hypersonic missile systems and there is no comprehensive defense for it. Furthermore you want to take them head on in China with flying calculators and ancient missiles. Don't do this to the rest of us. Get your ish together first please. Some of us didn't ask to be here for your bullshit

[@What7YiYue]

Look flying calculators are more advanced than flying washing machines

[@doublebackagain4311]

Why would India be upset by China being blocked? They could seize the opportunity to take on that production business.

[@TuanTran-h5f]

The Chinese and Indian economy are connected just as America is connected to the Chinese.

[@GM-xk1nw]

India is too backward in comparison to China.

[@whysoserious7553]

​@@GM-xk1nwIndia have fought wars China hasn't only some sneaky attacks

[@APDM_Analysis]

If China is blocked, basically half of world cannot get regular products and consumption items that’s made in China. There’s no blockade that selective let people access to Chinese goods while preventing Chinese receiving foreign goods. A total blockade means all trade parties suffer, and let me tell you that’s a lot of countries. So total blockade is not something on the book even in war games.

[@hamzamahmood9565]

​@APDM_OSINT After 2030, U.S. could block China with minimal damage due to growing food, energy, and manufacturing independence that America is achieving with the help of Mexico (and a handful of other nations). This is not to say that we will not be affected, but that we will be the least affected nation on Earth if China is blockaded.

[@JesusKnowsAllComeToHim]

Can you make a video about a hypothetical war between the New York National Guard and the Canadian Army?

[@rogue_hk]

hypothetical

[@Conradlovesjoy]

It would certainly be hypocritical.

[@hannahdyson7129]

Those saying hypothetical are In denial

[@JesusKnowsAllComeToHim]

@bryf2787 Whoops, glad you pointed that out, lol

[@rogue_hk]

lmao@@hannahdyson7129

[@palacete]

If you compare the second world war with now. Germany lost because it had a smaller industry than America and the Soviets. Only Soviet and North American industry produced more than the entire Axis. And remember that Germany, even when bombed, managed to produce a lot of equipment and production increased in the last years of the conflict. If the Chinese industry is bigger they will be able to produce more anti-aircraft missiles and you just considered a naval blockade without explaining how the North American navy would survive the Chinese missiles that have a range that can reach thousands of kilometers, I was waiting for this explanation but it didn't it arrived. Furthermore, if China produces more drones and hypersonic missiles, I definitely don't know how the Americans could create a naval blockade.

[@nutellacreep]

Modern warfare is different from WW2 warfare. In WW2, conscripts can be given weapon systems. With modern warfare, a conscript will have no idea how to work in a team with other conscripts to operate a guided missile cruiser, or to fly a J-20 plane. So even if Country X produces 5000 planes, it's not clear where 5000 pilots will come from...

[@TheCat48488]

More because of oil starvation than production Plus Germany was not being resource efficient

[@NotTheBomb]

A bigger reason that Germany’s greater production towards the end of the war didn’t help, was the brain drain of Germany. Many of Germany’s best pilots, tankers, and soldiers eventually died. Meanwhile America and Britain took their tank, and plane, aces back home to train the next batch of troops. Russia suffered from this same problem, hence their constantly high casualties. Guessing by china’s aggressive authoritarianism, they’ll likely keep their best deployed. Leaving the next batch under trained, and becoming cannon fodder. This same problem happened to Japan’s navy and air force as well.

[@yopyop3241]

The blockade will be conducted way beyond the reach of China’s drones. And it will be conducted via dinky little boats. It takes next to nothing to waylay a modern merchant vessel. Inflatable boats with outboard motors can do the job. That leaves China lobbing hypersonic missiles thousands of miles at inflatable boats. China loses.

[@thomasantn]

@@yopyop3241in front of Type 052C/052D and Type 055 escort and underwater attack submarines?

[@hfarthingt]

The first point should have been the power output capabilities. Electricity is what wins wars. USA had such industrial might during WW2 because of the power from the dam generators built during the Great Depression. China is doing the same thing today but in terms of nuclear and coal power plants, dwarfing the amount of plants the USA has.

[@Joshua-dt5vi]

The us has both more nuclear and coal plants than China though? Also the US also dwarfs China when it comes to natural gas as well.

[@Djamonja]

Around 60% of China's electricity generation is from coal plants, and China imports huge amounts of coal from countries like Australia. Not to mention LNG via shipping. So China might have some electricity generation issues if there was a war.

[@漂浮的云]

各位海外的朋友们，核子大国坚决不能直接对抗，风险太大，就算不用核子世界承受不了，我敢肯定美国和中国要是全面战争，世界上每个国家都没好日子过，战争随着时间推移都会被卷进来，我们还是想想怎么消除冲突吧！不想在所知的星球里唯一智慧的物种被我们自己消灭了😂😂😂

[@hyuxion]

I am quite surprised that people never dare to talk about invading Russia, and yet keep talking about invading China. Is China weaker than Russia? China’s industrial output is more than USA, Germany, Japan and UK combined! And China can rely on Russia and Central Asia for raw materials needs!

[@peka2478]

nukes.

[@MrLougarou1000]

American propaganda whistles through their heads. China manufacturers 4.5 million drones per year and 80% of American drones, according to statistia data sets. They better read their Bibles first.

[@yopyop3241]

Americans hate China far more than they do Russia. Taiwan is a thriving, vibrant democracy while Ukraine was riddled with corruption. Taiwan is a major US trade partner, especially when it comes to critical high end semiconductors; Ukraine is not, in anything. Taiwan is astride the trade route from the US to SE Asia (I believe total US trade with SE Asia is now greater than US trade with China); Ukraine is stuffed away in the cul-de-sac that is the Black Sea. The Euro countries should be able to defeat Russia on their own; no one thinks the same about the East and Southeast Asian democracies vs China.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

@@peka2478 China has hypersonic nukes and probably more than they reveal to the world.

[@Novgorod_Republic]

What is the last time China has been at war? Military experience and military readiness is what defines the military potential of a country. Yes, China is weaker than Russia. And every EU member is weaker than Ukraine.

[@JamesJay8]

Binkov. U needed to make this video longer to explain how US blockade ships survived Chinese anti ship missiles as the blockade or not of China hugely influences trade in/out adding to production

[@yopyop3241]

Anti-ship missiles can’t protect merchant shipping. Do you have any idea how easy it is to interdict a modern merchant cargo vessel? Dinky little boats are all it takes. Inflatable boats with outboard motors can do the job. Missiles that can go from Chinese soil to the Malacca Strait vs the number of dinky little boats that the US and its allies can get into the Malacca Strait- who do you think wins that battle? For China to succeed in running the blockade would require Chinese military escort ships. All the way to the trade destination. But those escort ships would probably get sunk long before they could even get past the First Island Chain. And even if they survived that far, the Chinese escort ships wouldn’t have enough fuel to perform an escort mission beyond the First Island Chain, anyway. Unlike the US with its global network of 800+ overseas military bases, China has nowhere for its naval vessels to refuel.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

@@yopyop3241 China have millions of missiles and drones and above that it is backed by the industrial prowess that dwarfs the combined Western world. No amount of bullsh*tting will save US navy.

[@elmateo77]

@@ajaykumarsingh702The Chinese do not have "millions" of missiles, they have a few thousand that would be of any use against ships. They may have millions of small fpv drones, but those aren't exactly useful for escorting convoys hundreds of miles out to sea. The US would probably enforce a blockade with attack submarines, you announce any ship going to China will be sunk then if anybody tries they take a torpedo from a sub they never knew was there. If the US was willing to be aggressive enough about it, they could definitely blockade Chinese sea imports, but attacks against merchant shipping would be politically unpopular.

[@Mr_MikeB]

@@elmateo77 Well, in that case you must take into consideration Chinese submarines as well. Somehow Im pretty sure they will be able to sunk American transport ships easily as well...

[@elmateo77]

@@Mr_MikeB They certainly could, the problem is China only has 6 nuclear powered attack submarines whereas the US has more than 50, and conventional submarines don't really have the range to interdict most American shipping. The US also has significantly better ASW capabilities due to their specialization in high end sensor technology.

[@Lili_Chen2005]

The mainland could never take Taiwan. Any occupation would have to have my grandmother constantly degrade them. It would shatter morale.

[@tyharris9994]

Ha!

[@arghost9798]

​@@tyharris9994 don't take someone with anime profile picture seriously. Their statement is not valid.

[@Lili_Chen2005]

​@@arghost9798 I'm somewhat of an authority on how my grandmother behaves. Every summer we visit and I am reminded that I grew up someplace very different. Taiwanese beauty standards and expectations are impossible, dude. More importantly, Menhera-Chan is friggin' lit.

[@hughmungus2760]

The entire premise of the war would determine how long the war lasts. If the war was over something like Taiwan, the moment Taiwan is starved into submission or successfully invaded, the US would basically lose any incentive to keep fighting. After all Neither China nor the US believe they can force an unconditional surrender of the other party and the threat of nuclear escalation prevents any kind of total war from breaking out between the two. Direct strikes on chinese manufacturing facilities are a non-starter just like direct strikes on Russian manufacturing facilities today. The US isn't going to trade LA for Taipei or Kiev.

[@yopyop3241]

“Starved into submission” applies to the PRC as well. Without US-provided freedom of navigation, China’s trade will fall prey to dozens of maritime militias and non-state actors. And without maritime imports of raw materials, China cannot maintain an industrialized economy or even feed itself. China will find itself as the least industrialized country in its neighborhood, surrounded by more industrialized rivals. That’s a recipe for a new Century of Humiliation, but this time the superior powers will be local. It is the height of idiocy for China to flail against the US-led rules based international order. The current system is the absolute best that China could ever possibly hope for. Access to the entire world, and the only “cost” is the need to uphold human rights, respect property rights, and have a decent level of government transparency. The chances of China managing to find or create a better situation are vanishingly small.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@yopyop3241 nonsense, outside of a US lead blockade china can protect its own trade from pirates and 'non state actors' You seriously don't think that most countries that trade with china have a vested interest in continuing to trade with china? they will protect their own ports and waterways for pirates because pirates harm them too. The alternative is BRICS which is proving to be more and more viable day by day. The US has shown time and time again to abuse the system that its put in place for its own gain. Its about time an alternative arose. The fact that Russia is still able to trade with the world despite US sanctions shows that the US can no longer dictate the rules for the world. With taiwan. the chances of global trade with china stopping is even lower because only a handful of countries recognise the ROC and NOBODY recognises Taiwan as a country.

[@yopyop3241]

⁠​⁠@@hughmungus2760 The moment a conflict starts, China’s trade will be shut down. That will make it easy to implement strict sanctions. Countries’ vested interest in continuing to trade with China will evaporate. Every one of the countries from the South China Sea to the Persian Gulf will move into the manufacturing vacuum left by the shut down of China’s trade. That will create new vested interests, ones that will want to prevent Chinese manufacturing from ever coming back online. Those new vested interests will work to keep the sanctions in place and will push for maritime militias and non-state actors to prey on Chinese shipping. Protecting shipping is hard. Modern merchant vessels are almost laughably vulnerable. Protecting modern maritime trade requires an overwhelming power advantage, and China will never have that beyond its coastal zone in the aftermath of a conflict. Russia is still able to trade because the advanced democracies want Russia to still be able to trade. Even the natural gas pipelines through Ukraine are still functioning. The advanced democracies are content to allow Russia to continue to trade, because Russia has proven to be a paper tiger. Not a real threat. If Russia ever became a real threat, if it started conquering Ukraine at a pace that could defeat Ukraine in under a millennium, Russia’s trade would easily be shut down. Is that your plan? For the PLA to prove to be so toothless that imposing sanctions and stopping China’s trade feels like kicking a newborn puppy?

[@hughmungus2760]

@@yopyop3241 non state actors might be able to shut off trade at certain chokepoints but not for the world and not on the high seas. trust me, china will be fine without the US protecting it's shipping routes. It would happily replace the US in many of these locations.

[@yopyop3241]

⁠@@hughmungus2760It will be countries like India, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. replacing the US in those locations, not China. For decades, the only things that the US has asked for were respect for human and property rights and enough government transparency for a modicum of trust. When it’s India, Japan, etc., we’ll see if they all ask for as little. I find that unlikely, but if that’s the direction China chooses to go, then I guess we’ll find out.

[@luting3]

Before China has chance to win, China has to push US outside 2nd island chain. China main industry is along coast line. Outside 2nd island chain, it means pretty much outside US missile attacking range.

[@MrLougarou1000]

How do they get there in the first place 😂

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

Impossible as that would mean war with Japan and South Korea too

[@SpringJungle]

Hey Binkov, are you okay? You don’t sound as energetic as before.

[@darthsidius9631]

He is three guys so I think he is okay

[@MrLougarou1000]

Have you seen the recent updates on Ukraine? Most of them are feeling down. Macron is threatening to send troops into Russia. The last time a French leader did that he ended up falling in Waterloo.

[@wheneggsdrop1701]

I think he’s just much more serious as these moved from hypothetical situations to possible events and referring ongoing war(s).

[@MrLougarou1000]

It correlates with the Ukraine updates.

[@utvara1]

Ukrajina shilling rekt him.

[@云君-b2w]

People in many other countries may find it difficult to understand the hearts of the Chinese people, especially senior intellectuals and the main labor force. Most Chinese people hate war, but if the war involves what they think is reasonable and just, it is in line with the values ​​inherited for thousands of years. Then the people of this country will burst out with amazing endurance and a group consensus that only desires victory regardless of the cost. The Sino-Japanese War in 1895 and the wars in the 1930s caused everyone in this country to have a morbid need for victory in the war. This huge national consensus will make a country whose industrial capacity is the world's factory become very scary when crop planning and resource self-sufficiency are prioritized. So this discussion of a Sino-US war is almost meaningless, because the United States will not have a hot war with China at any cost.

[@PenskePC17]

The US will absolutely go to war over Taiwan, and it would be a huge mistake to think otherwise. You likely won't find a military analyst on earth that isn't paid by the CCP that would bet on China being victorious. When US allies are included, the industrial capacity of China(most of which would be eliminated in the opening days of the war, anyway) looks far less intimidating. Also China lacks they type of sophisticated manufacturing in comparison to the US that will be useful in a war.

[@liongjiahwong5478]

America have NATO.. China have NK, Russia, Iran. All of Europe is Russia responsibilities@@PenskePC17

[@PenskePC17]

@@liongjiahwong5478 and Russia can't even handle the poorest country in Europe with hand me down western equipment, In non expeditionary combat. Also, the US has powerful friends all over the planet. Russia and China are very unpopular.

[@liongjiahwong5478]

@PenskePC17.. you must be joking..China has many friends. Only America had a head start to control the monetary instrument. The RBI had 100 plus members. America doesn't want RBI to succeed.

[@yopyop3241]

⁠@@liongjiahwong5478 Nobody trusts China. Even Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. don’t trust China enough to allow PLA bases on their territory. In contrast, enough countries around the globe trust the US enough to allow the US to have a global network of hundreds of bases on foreign soil.

[@sanpangli7009]

Do not overlook China's resilience, nor underestimate America's capacity for self-transformation. Despite America's deindustrialization, it can achieve reindustrialization through a world war far larger in scale than the Ukrainian conflict. American media claims that China will invade Taiwan in 2027, not because China will actually do so, but because America needs China to. Only war can eliminate financial capital. After the reset of the world economy, the US government will support industrial capital and achieve reindustrialization through war. this video is well done. Love from China. Hope for world peace, may everyone in the world enjoy peace and prosperity."“希望世界和平，愿世界上每个人都享有和平与繁荣。”

[@off6848]

No it won’t Did you know that in ww2 USA basically became fascist? Private companies were forced to retool and produce war products Back then people went with it because they loved their country, fascism didn’t get its bad name yet The greedy globalists that run our country now would never do it unless the government forced the tax payers to pay for bloated profits and siphon the money from the people

[@twistedneck]

excellent take.. lets hope it does not come down to this! love from America.

[@bariman223]

14:38 - I have my doubts that this would actually work. From I've learned for the current Red Sea conflict and how Russia is selling it's oil, it's that trading vessel's could be owned from a private from one country, has sailors from 3 or 4 different countries working on it, and move goods from one or more other countries. We would have to stop and closely inspect every single ship and that's a very tall order.

[@reedsexton3973]

Shipbuilding appears to be a major weakness for the US, and it is, but it's important to keep in mind that the 2nd and 3rd largest shipbuilders are South Korea and Japan, respectively. Japan is almost certain to be involved so they can pick up a lot of the US slack, even if South Korea is more questionable.

[@jamesw2003]

you forgot to mention mass protests once the draft notices are mailed out.

[@saldownik]

I wonder how many trans males would quickly detransitioned 😆

[@thx1138sixnine]

Google “Century of Humiliation” Chinese will volunteer and we’ll be humiliated.

[@valorz6064]

Im sure America's feminist gay black trans army will be happy to humiliate America for the rest of the world.

[@utvara1]

Yes, US would collapse

[@markwhite168]

Listening to Binkov I started thinking: if the trade with China would stop who would fill the gap in EU and US markets.

[@mirofitos]

Few years and we would have everything. India, Vietnam, Indonesia. Every company in these countries and many others would love ban on China. They still can produce cheaper than Europe and US with high salaries. But China knows it and for example in Europe invests massive money into Hungary, which will block every ban on China for sure. But automatization, AI and robotization can change it in the future. Biggest cost will be energy plus technology lead(performance + effectivity). There is completly possible that China won't have that big advantage like it has now in industry costs.

[@shirotatsu1]

Vietnam and Mexico

[@ImStillWoody]

The US is already switching to other nations like Vietnam, India and Mexico

[@MrLougarou1000]

It will be a self inflicted sanction. China has dominated import/export for a decade now.

[@khanandrew6035]

mexico might fill part of the gap, as for vietnam... i have to remind you that vietnam heavily rely on chinese electricity power, if china refuse to export electricity to vietnam or simply dont let Me Kong river flows into vietnam by using dams. then viet's manufacture capability will be crippled@@shirotatsu1

[@Markfr0mCanada]

The first 2 comments I see are simplistic, polarising and opposite. This is going to be a great comments section!

[@joshuapartridge5092]

INCORECCT.

[@vernonkuhns3561]

What is produced and the quality are as important as the total amount of output.

[@AFistfulOf4K]

F-35s deliveries have been halted because they're not airworthy. The US military has fallen a long way from WW2 and its 100 carriers. The reality is, China can blockade Taiwan without putting a single ship or plane at risk, that's what they meant to demonstrate with those rockets they fired at all sides of the island. If they choose, there will be no way in or out. Commercial tankers don't like a warzone, look what's happening in the Strait of Hormuz. A blockaded China would be in rough shape (less so as their infrastructure to Russia is improved over the next 5-10 years), but a blockaded Taiwan would be a ticking clock until the power shuts off, the food and water run out, and all the consequences that go with that. This'll never happen but I think the best situation would be for the world to say, "We'll give you Taiwan but none of its technology or people. Anyone who wants to leave will be granted citizenship in their country of choice, and we're going to level TSMC to the ground before we go." Then anyone who wants to stay behind (god knows why) can do so, and the rest of the world will be enriched.

[@vernonkuhns3561]

@@AFistfulOf4K Old news. Catch up.

[@The136th]

In that case China win since Chinese gear are newever and more advanced than the US ones who still mostly use outdated cold war era ships and jets.

[@jbcom2416]

So we have seen how the US would respond to China, but we didnt hear anything about China responding in kind on the US soil.

[@pahtar7189]

The chances of a Chinese invasion are nil. Only the US still has a "blue water navy" capable of large scale amphibious operations, so China would have to attack by air, and that would fare no better. They certainly have the ability to attack US bases in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Guam, and from submarines they could attack Alaska, Hawaii, and the continental US. But that's about it.

[@Grimloxz]

What is up with this American obsession with fantasising about war with China? Are you simply trying to will it into existence?

[@DavidNaval]

China would never be able to invade the US mainland, that’s not even in the picture

[@DavidNaval]

@@Grimloxzthey want to invade Taiwan and the US has to defend Taiwan… what don’t you get

[@Grimloxz]

@@DavidNaval I won’t even bother with a substantive response because I can see some 🐕-ass deletes comments they don’t like. So much for the “free speech” mafia.

[@amunra5330]

I am pretty sure in a divided world Africa and most of South America will be in China's sphere of economic influence - as Chinese has a HUGE economic presence on the continent.

[@yopyop3241]

Nah, they’ll cut China loose the moment commercial shipping stops servicing Chinese ports. You should expect all of them to pounce on the offer to reclassify the BRI money from “loans” to “gifts.”

[@amunra5330]

I dont think that will happen. African governments see China as a partner and is treated way better by the Chinese than the Western world. @@yopyop3241

[@yopyop3241]

@@amunra5330You think anyone is going to risk secondary sanctions in favor of already-kaput trade links to China? Oh, wait, I get it. You are foreseeing a coalition of African and Middle Eastern navies coming together and forcibly ejecting the US Navy from the Indian Ocean and Malacca. Sounds like a plan. Let’s make it happen! Go team!

[@m.a3914]

The current industrial capacity is definitely bigger in China. Yet they would be more greately impacted by a war with the US. Not just because of their economy being more reliant on foreign trade including raw materials from outside but also because of US bombings. The US industrial capacity is not as big but huge investments are coming that are exceeding China. Moreover, the US industrial capacity would only rise unless China somehow cut the shipping of raw materials to the US which is unlikely. Furthermore, the base in the US supply chain is very sophisticated. Meaning, even if the US lacks something in scale, a base still exists. This means the US would not need to start from the ground for anything. The experience is there, the talent is there they just need to scale up which by no means is an easy task but it would have been much worse if they had to start from 0

[@lape2002]

Fact number 1 : the US industrial capacity is pretty much non-existent. Fact number 2 : Chinese industry dominates in most crucial raw materials including iron ore, magnesium, antimony, copper and has Russian Federation for everything else. Fact number 3 : US would be crushed into oblivion in the first months of such war, first by financial crash, then consumer good supply then military defeat.

[@MrLougarou1000]

American industry is going to rise up out of the rustbelts in Michigan to compete with China? 😂😂😂

[@m.a3914]

@@MrLougarou1000 It doesn't necessarily needs to be in the Rust belt

[@MrLougarou1000]

@@m.a3914 will we build those factories in the Cincinnati music hall in Ohio? Where are all of these factories coming from? Americans are too good for physical labor.

[@m.a3914]

@@MrLougarou1000 In case of war, there will be no people too good for a job buddy

[@anthonybellmunt3103]

Before one starts a war, one must ask, "And then what?" Reality, is unbearably hard!

[@dtsai]

The reality is life never stops and a country will eventually fill the power vacuum when you step back. Plenty of wars have been started without asking that question so that is false.

[@kanlu5199]

Smart people do that, but the USA is otherwise

[@ttuliorancao]

Well, it's very hard to consider that maritime trade to China wouldn't be redirected to far East Russian territories or Pakistan and India to enter China by land. Furthermore, it would be very unlikely that neutral countries would just sit idle while their ships are sunk by the US.

[@TeddyR_Official]

Made in China. CCP PLA can produce as many weapons as they want, or can have advance technologies in it, but you can’t trust the quality or if they even work. As for it’s army, no experience at all. You can have all the cool toys, but if you don’t know how to play, those toys are useless. Just like what’s happening to Russia, the CCP is aware that it’s economy will cripple with all the sanctions and trade restrictions. They are currently feeling it now, how much worse it can be if they started an actual war?

[@teebee3309]

It doesn’t really matter if they can work because the more they produce the more it increase their probabilities, I think a huge determining factor of that war would be the quality of the human capital, so the health and productivity of the people and China would win on that in the long run

[@orbitalpotato9940]

Considering the F35 literally uses Chinese parts, I'd say they're pretty reliable.

[@P3RF3CTD3ATH]

Do you think that China is using the same factories for their domestic military hardware that they do for their cheap plastic toys for export?

[@notshowing6428]

Why am i sitting in bed in my underwear at 4pm watching a puppet analyse the industral capacity of the US and china.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Puppet analyst. That's a proper analysis of this video.

[@appa609]

Current combat aircraft production is really hard to scale. So is pilot training. I can't see the numbers for day 1 attrition being replaced for at least 5 years.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

I’ve always wondered if airforces would introduce “austerity” model jets in major war time conditions. Like, converted trainers or simplified-single engine planes for more minor mission types, so that they can save better quality aircraft for more important jobs.

[@Joesolo13]

@@nobodyherepal3292 almost certainly, though a focus would likely be on drones as seen in Ukraine. You don't need "real" pilots anymore for such things.

[@Man_0f_Trenches]

China is really hurting on trained pilots. They can’t even fly all the jets on their new aircraft carrier because the problem is so bad. Chinese pilots also fly less hours than their American counterparts.

[@Conradlovesjoy]

Industrial output would mean everything in a war between the world’s two greatest industrial powers.

[@felixf.3392]

Weapons production in the US during World War II was successful because it had a huge production base during that time that could be converted into a war industry. The US made its own steel, aluminum, gunpowder. Why does the United States have a huge trade deficit today? Because it consumes far more goods than it produces. And that has to do with the globalized economic system where the US cannot exploit its production potential. The United States has a service economy and will not change without major social upheaval.

[@Jordanpgates1]

Thanks for putting chapters in! Really helps!

[@Naylamp21]

China would easily get raw material from vast resources of Russia and ex-soviet central asia countries, plus China will continue trade oil and gas but also any other things possible trough iran and pakistan in persian gulf. Besides that, countries in africa and south america will get extremely good prices for their commodities that will be escorted by the vast chinese fleet. Ukrainian war showed off blockades are not so feasible nowadays.

[@yopyop3241]

Check the situation with the road and rail networks. The capacity isn’t there. The infrastructure across Siberia was built by the USSR to support the handful of millions of people of the Russian Far East. That infrastructure is many orders of magnitude short of what would be needed to support China.

[@kienngo4601]

​@@yopyop3241im pretty sure they can build it. That takes time but China definitely can.

[@yopyop3241]

@ Not with Chinese workers. Putin won’t allow them in. If Xi wants that infrastructure built, Putin says Xi has to hire Russian companies and Russian workers to do it. It’s a trust and national security thing. An army of Chinese men on Russian soil? Connected by giant new road and rail lines to China? And unlike, say, Greece or Nigeria or Pakistan, Russia can’t call on the USA to save them if the Chinese try anything underhanded. I don’t see that infrastructure getting built any time soon.

[@manofsan]

China is upgrading its nuclear forces to present a credible nuclear deterrent to the US. I think China would be willing to use nuclear weapons first, in response to any US attacks against Chinese mainland. Here, we're not talking about attacks against China via some intermediary like Ukraine. Direct attacks by US forces against Chinese mainland would provoke reciprocal response by Chinese forces against US mainland.

[@Rifin-pu2hb]

Funny that I got this recommended after watching a news about China's new regulation in express parcel deliver which caused shortage of delivery workers, some delivery center had all their workers quit and people need to search their own package from the warehouse.

[@078percent4]

The situation you mentioned does not exist. Nothing has changed in the express delivery industry. Everyone acquiesced to the previous rules. The biggest problem with Western media is that they try to find 0.1% of negative events and think that is 100% of China's problems. Similarly, there is youth unemployment rate. In fact, China does not lack jobs, it just lacks high-paying jobs that young people like, because no young people are willing to work in factories (which is not respectable in the minds of young people, even if the wages are high). There are also real estate thunderstorms. Among the hundreds of people around me, not one person has said that there is a problem with their house. There was an overall 30% to 40% drop in housing prices, but it did not cause social unrest and everyone accepted it silently. This helped China de-bubble. It's an absolute good thing. A U.S. stock market bubble by comparison?

[@皮佳伟]

When it comes to discussing the issue of America's allies, here are my thoughts: 1. Japan and South Korea, both countries are within the range of China's hypersonic missiles. If China produces enough Dongfeng-17 missiles, what can these two countries do? Moreover, historically, North Korea and China have a "blood alliance," so in the event of a conflict, South Korea would likely focus all its efforts on North Korea. 2. Australia is quite far away, so what kind of support could they provide? 3. Vietnam and the Philippines: While I don't want to underestimate these two countries, in terms of military strength, what threat can they pose to China? 4. NATO, if NATO joins the US in a war, Russia would probably be the happiest. Just imagine, within five years, China's high-speed rail could reach the western border of Russia, facing NATO directly. Although China's army has been overshadowed by its navy, air force, and rocket force in recent years, given the opportunity, the Chinese army would surely shock the world with its power. 5. India is a pragmatic country, and it's highly unlikely for them to go all out for the US. However, there is a significant possibility that India could provoke friction and disputes along the China-India border. Nevertheless, these actions are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. US policymakers are well aware of these factors, which is why they have refrained from provoking a hot war with China to date.

[@mgmkiller]

I just don't understand why BKB's analysis is so biased. Besides, the US and its allies seem to be doing so well economically every time. Such a conflict scenario will play out against the BRICS, which by definition means the exclusion of the US from the global economy for all intents and purposes. This likely conflict will be asymmetric.

[@khanandrew6035]

If USA wanna blockade China, Vietnam will be happy to be a transit spot for middle east oil to China and earn plenty A LOT OF MONEY, just like India did in Russian-Ukraine war.

[@nutellacreep]

Ukraine war has shown that 1 Patriot system with inexperienced operators can defend against multiple incoming hypersonic missiles at the same time. DF-17 will likely similarly struggle against land targets in Guam and Japan. For naval targets that are on the move, true hypersonic missiles can't really adjust their trajectories to hit them...and if they're ballistic missiles being sold as hypersonics...ballistic missile defense for the USN should be a relatively harmless exercise. That said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. So who knows?

[@MUZA1875]

Also china's miltary gear might not be as capable but they can push out much more than USA ATM , will take time for USA and Europe to gear up especially Europe .

[@TankerdogeInvincible]

Dont forget that Philippines is a threat batanes is arming up and Philippines is preparing for war plus Philippines military has more experience compare to china all equipment is useless if you are not gling tl use it correctly look at umraine russia dont us it equipment correctly thats why they lost 1000 tanks per day and Philippines will use guerrilla warfare against china and vietnam defeated China during 1979 war and lastly if china invades the terrain of both Philippines and Vietnam will be a nightmare for china as much as usa did in Vietnam

[@HellishPestilence]

Very typical of the usual western idea that China is easy to defeat. You talk a lot about Chinese exports being stopped, but don't talk about American imports collapsing. Without Chinese supply chains, American shelves will be empty. Which problem is worse to have? You also assume that American allies can allow American attacks on mainland China without consequence. In reality, American bombing of Shanghai from the Philippines means Chinese bombing of Manila and a marine blockade on the Philippines. Same for Japan, which is a lot more vulnerable to a sea blockade than China. They might be able to attack Chinese ship yards once but after that America loses all its bases in Asia. If Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines endure a sustained bombing campaign from China there won't be much left. They know this too, so they won't allow Americans to use their countries as a base for an attack on China. Without these countries, the whole idea of a sea blockade is dead in the water

[@pieterveenders9793]

Exactly, those countries near China and within range of it's conventional ballistic/cruise missiles would perhaps initially allow the US use of their airfields and military bases, but as soon as they got bombed by China they'll very quickly rethink that idea and most of them would refuse the US access any longer. And there's no way most of them would deploy military assets of their own in aid of the US, they need them for their own defense.

[@BatAskal]

Sustained bombing campaign with missiles containing water? Okay! 😂😂

[@Da__goat]

Yeah, the USA does not import items necessary for the war effort from China and does not depend on Chinese supply chains in the days after Covid. China cannot enforce a blockade on any of its neighbors. And the USA can easily strike a whole number of chinese ports with its massive technological advantage that it has in bombing and aircraft. The existence of the F-22 alone tips the scales in favor of the US as a well placed bomb ends a port.

[@b21raider27]

300,000 fighters and bombers the US produced in WW2 (4 years US was at war). In a WW scenario both US & China will Never produce even 1/10th of that. We would need AI to mass produce to ever come close to WW2 output. Today’s weapons are far too complex and time consuming to make.

[@BennyHolden-ls7sj]

US is a shadow of its WII industrial capacity, that's because greedy corporations outsourced all manufacturing capability to china, china gets stronger by the day US gets weaker by the hour! US cannot even supply Ukraine with enough ammo on its own, and there's the moral of the story. China will also have the latest intel on those western weapons and how they perform from Russian, US is still in Biden dream of equality socialism and saying nice things to nice people whilst stabbing them in the back at the same time! US would lose a war with china if fought in the next 5 years!

[@AFistfulOf4K]

They're complex and time-consuming to manufacture because that's what the people in charge of the money have asked for, space-age wonderweapons focused on operator safety. We've spent the years since the cold war annually making tiny improvements in theoretical operator safety in exchange for gigantic increases in cost and decreases in effective firepower. And you see the result in Ukraine: we quickly ran out of spare wonderweapons to send them and the war might still carry on for years to come. We've sent them something like 1/3 of our GMLRS rockets, France and UK have sent a huge proportion of their Scalp/Storm Shadow missiles and now have almost none for themselves. Those weapons have done great work... but there's no more to send. We can send more ATACMS next, but we'll soon run out of those too. What Ukraine actually wants is millions of drones and dumb artillery shells, because when the rubber hits the road you need to actually kill your enemy, not impress him with your technology. But we can't make those because decades ago the politicians said, "artillery shells? how barbaric, we'll never need those again." We have to rely on old Soviet stockpiles for the artillery and China for the drones. If the US was under actual threat we'd find a way to make something that might only be half as effective as our best weapons but for a tenth of the cost, probably much less.

[@nekomakhea9440]

car makers could make kamikaze drones, as those are often piston engine devices with minimal complexity

[@josephahner3031]

Manufacturers of lawn mowers and scooters could do this too.

[@fernandoperez8587]

We don't have enough computer chips.

[@sharkbrick9949]

You didn't talk about food imports and now this would impact the war?

[@jonathanriley6015]

China would be worse off economically due to loss of exports? Who is in a better position...China with a large surplus of people and manufacturing due to the loss of exports or the US who just lost those needed imports and now needs to not only ramp up for lost imports but also war? I am pretty sure in war those idle factories would find a use for China.

[@saiyedakhtar3931]

Actually China IMPORTS labor from Vietnam. Lol

[@Man_0f_Trenches]

Most of what China exports to the U.S is easily replaceable elsewhere. What China imports is raw commodities, which aren’t. Without those raw commodities, those factories are either useless or facing bottlenecks. Most of those industrial workers would be jobless, and you can’t give men AK-47s and tell them to march across the ocean.

[@Nesstor01]

China is a net importer for things such as oil, foods, and raw materials. Which means they rely on importing this stuff in to make stuff. They import 70% of their ore from Australia. Then import over 11 million barrels a day and 80% of that comes from Saudi Arabia. Without oil, no plastic or fuel to run the country. Then the food they import from the US and Brazil because China can't make enough of it domestically. The US is a net exporter of oil, food, and raw material because the US produces an excess amount of it. The US is the top exporter of fuel, with most of it going to Europe. The US food export to China is $35 billion or 17% of China's food import per year with Brazil accounting for over $43 billion or accounting for 21% of China's total food import. How do you keep your factories running without the raw material or food to keep your population feed? The only oil pipeline China has comes from Kazakhstan since the oil fields from Russia are 8,000 miles away in western Russia because that's where their main customer, Europe, was. Over 90% of China's imports come from sea, which the US already controls those chokepoints such as Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the Pacific. The US would just blockade these routes and starve out China.

[@jonathanriley6015]

The entire China sea would be a war zone, doubt anyone, including us would be getting imports from that entire area. Much of the world's technology products could be cut off from trade, which is much harder to replace than raw simple raw materials. You can substitute different materials when needed, but not many substitutions for microchips, etc.

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Chinese spammers coming out in force. I love to see Chinese people speaking the language that matters. English.

[@CounterfeitDuck]

Judging from how much US WITH ALLIES struggled to supply current actions going on, including the fact that one of conflict was practically free to supply (excluding logistics costs) because of the support itself was going in form of Soviet built tech or assets undergoing decomissoin, it would take a miracle for Blues to win this war of nutrition. These calculations seem to be based on estimations that the Red won't mobilize the economy in face of most of it being smoked by attacks early. That is a «Blitzkrieg» plan. We all have seen what happens when Blitzkrieg turns into a war of nutrition.

[@CounterfeitDuck]

And I haven't even brought up the production chains of US military equipment going through mainland China.

[@yopyop3241]

“War of nutrition” is apt. Without maritime trade, China can probably only produce enough calories to support around 1/3rd of its current population. I’m sure that will go smoothly. The 2/3rds that will be singled out to go without will just meekly accept the CCP’s decision and go quietly into the night. There won’t be any disruptions to China’s production for the war effort, because all Chinese will agree that conquering Taiwan makes it all worth it.

[@stc2828]

Car manufacturers won’t necessarily make fighter jets, but it’s not that hard to modify production line to make drones and missiles

[@douglasfels9789]

Lot of armchair generals in the comments today.

[@wooden2187]

Aye Cap’n. 🫡

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Just like you.

[@douglasfels9789]

Me? As in I'm one of the ones telling Binkov that all his research is for not because I feel that I know better?

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@douglasfels9789 Binkov's research? What is that? This vidoe completely omits any consideration of US ecnomy. There's not a single word on it. It also doesn't consider the fact that US can never make such a blockade, cos, any large concentration of force is a suicide these days, as seen in Ukraine war. And China (and many others) got anti-ship hypersonic missiles. Just two obvious points makes this video completely false. You either gotto be completely ignorant or a complete dellusional pro-western fanboy to not see such obvious flaws in this video. No need of any knowledge of war.

[@douglasfels9789]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 See first comment! 🤣🤣🤣

[@tlmoller]

In the last years of ww2 USA build almost 100 aircraft carriers. This was all types from light and up. But so far from what could be done today.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

Haven't you seen the news lately? There's a factory boom in the US, and Bidens infrastructure projects have set us up for even more industrial growth

[@xaveircombs2690]

@@SelfProclaimedEmperoryeah no

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@xaveircombs2690 the US is literally the world's leading aircraft producer today and china only 6th place. Airpower wins wars

[@alexpan8138]

USA is not the same USA 80 yrs ago, nowadays USA is de-industrialized with almost no manufacturing left, only Financial and services

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@alexpan8138 the US is currently the world's leading manufacturer of aircraft

[@MeanJackal]

uploaded 4 hours ago and the title includes "China" let's go 🙌

[@MrAndrewAllen]

Do you think China would let the US attack their many ship yards, and not go after a few US & allied ship yards with (for example) submarine-launched missiles?

[@comeniusja6563]

Somebody could claim China can't exist as closed economy, also lacking natural sources, energy supply etc., nevertheless it should be taken into account that contemporary geopolitical constellation has pushed this country into firmly connection with Russia, which is contrary extremely rich on all thinkable resources. According to hostile relationship and rivaling US with both of these countries it isn't hard to predict which side Russia would follow. US should make better to concentrate itself on its own internal issues rather than permanently initiate dangerous situations possibly leading to WW3.

[@戰術推演]

Only rail transport cannot meet the needs of 1.4 billion people

[@gsyoou]

America can't beat Afghanistan and Houthi. Stop bragging.

[@yopyop3241]

Does the US want to beat the Houthis? Hardly any US trade goes via the Red Sea. China is the country that uses that route the most. With Afghanistan, the US easily won the “break stuff” part. In contrast, the US lost the “turn them into nice people” part. In a conflict with China, there will be no attempt at “turn them into nice people.” It will be entirely about “break stuff.”

[@BengalLancer]

​@@yopyop3241 as long as you Americans remain arrogant the world would side with your opponents. You can try being constructive for a change and see how many friends it would gather you like it did during world war II.. You won't win this one alone. US today is like Britain in forties. And China today is like US in forties.. break stuff with Afghani and houthis and break stuff with a near peer enemy like China are not the same things.

[@MarkMiller304]

⁠@@yopyop3241America’s boss Israel lives in that region, I’m sure it’s important to the US.

[@yopyop3241]

@@BengalLancerThe US is the most constructive country in human history. By far. The US created the rules based international order and freedom of navigation. Those US creations have led to a golden age for humanity. By every single metric ever devised- life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy rate, percent living in slavery, percent living in colonies, percent killed by disease, percent killed in war, etc., etc.- the years of US dominance have been the best for humanity. The CCP seems intent on tearing down that golden age. The result is going to turn out to be far worse for China than anyone else. Eighty years ago, at the dawn of the American era, China was the poorest of the poor, weakest of the weak. In the West, children were chided to eat everything their parents put on their plates, “because there are starving children in China.” No one has benefited more than China under the American led order, and no one will fall further if it breaks.

[@Cryosxify]

whatever you ccp Chinese need to believe to let you sleep at night 😂

[@paladisious]

16:28 That's Chinatown in Melbourne, Australia. I go to the pub on the left often lol

[@anthonybellmunt3103]

I'm from Melbourne too. I think I've might have visited it in the past!

[@sambob8019]

The answer to every other war that's happened so far is yes that has a big impact at the very least

[@richdobbs6595]

All three comments I posted on this video disappeared. This has happened on this channel a number of times. Does Binkov remove these comments or is it the KZbin algorithm/moderators?

[@andrewlim7751]

Deleted by u.s. democracy.

[@andrewlim7751]

Deleted by freedom of speech.

[@thomashsiai6250]

I don’t see why they would target you specifically, there are way too many Chinese or Russian fanboys in this comment section.

[@Darkcamera45]

this comment section is cancerous

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

What else do u expect of a propaganda video?

[@Urgelt]

American automakers could also make low-tech drones and loitering munitions. But the war won't last long. China imports close to 70% of its energy, food, raw materials and agricultural inputs. Shut that down and you can forget about ramping up manufacturing. You can forget about keeping people fed, too. Chinese chip manufacturing will go mostly off-line. The precursor inputs to chip-making come from overseas. There are thousands of processing steps and components involved, most not done in China. No chips = no manufacturing for any tech weapons or ships. China can't exist as a closed economy, let alone sustain a war. A blockade is an existential threat for the CCP. Which opens up the possibility of resorting to nukes. The CCP might calculate that losing half their population and dealing with the aftermath would be preferable if it lets them retain political control. As for the US, a nuclear exchange will end the US ability to project military power. It would take them off the board. It's no mistake that China is working feverishly to increase its nuclear arsenal. What they have is fine for MAD deterrence. It isn't enough yet for a no-holds-barred nuclear exchange with the US.

[@LegendOfTheFLame393]

I think your also forgetting almost their entire population is in front of hundred of dams so if that goes down due to nuke or sabotage almost every major farm ,weapon, and cities will be washed away and crushed also by sea water as well

[@harleylindley5590]

​@@LegendOfTheFLame393shooting a dam like the three gorges with a conventional weapon will elicit a nuclear response from China

[@macmcleod1188]

An nuclear exchange between china and the U.S. using 50 missiles per side against urban centers would render most of the entire world uninhabitable for close to 20 years. After the initial losses of over 500 million people, estimates are that 5 billion people would be lost globally over the next three years dropping the earths population to roughly 2.5 billion. Anything more than 20 degrees from the equator would likely be uninhabitable frozen wasteland. Basically Krakatoa on steroids.

[@lolasdm6959]

No, Chinese current nuclear aresnal is not even MAD it's just minimal deterrence. You think 300 nukes can take out US?

[@lolasdm6959]

@@macmcleod1188 50 missiles rendering earth uninhabitable? STFU, humans survived the ice age, nuclear winter is nothing in comparison. Cavemen didn't have nuclear power and green houses.

[@esquared5064]

One of your best videos ever.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

For a completely ignorant person. It doesn't consider the war fallout on US. Doesn't consider the impossibily of US naval blockade as China has ample hypersonic missiles to destroy any such thing. Doesn't consider how many other nations will stay trade with both as US power strarts to dwindle (many already stopped being afraid of US).

[@clonecy8237]

so?The United States and the multinational coalition lost the Korean War to China, which had backward weapons and production capabilities.

[@danmoreman954]

If China tries to invade Taiwan or size parts of the South China Sea, then their navy and Air Force will be outclassed

[@josephparisi1458]

The US barely mobilized for that war. At the time, our leaders didn't even refer to it as a war; They called it a peacekeeping operation. At the time, the American people couldn't even find Korea on a map so they weren't very interested in dying to defend it. Comparing how the US fought during a half assed war to how it would fight in a 3rd world war is false equivalence fallacy.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

Lost? It ended in a stalemate

[@clonecy8237]

@@josephparisi1458 That was your explanation to appease the people after the defeat. After the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed, the U.S. military admitted that the number of troops it had deployed in North Korea was 1.7 million. During the Clinton period, the number recognized by the U.S. was 2 million, and the latest number is 2.83 million. Isn’t this number a bit funny? Just like the United States initially admitted that only more than 30,000 people were killed in the Korean battlefield, and then the number rose to more than 60,000. Now a group of family members of the missing are asking the US government for an explanation. What kind of peacekeeping operation requires the use of such a large number of troops?

[@clonecy8237]

@@danmoreman954 First of all, your wording is wrong. China will not invade Taiwan because mainland China and Taiwan Island are still in the civil war stage. They belong to two political powers in one country. This is written in the Taiwan Constitution. If other countries participate, that is Interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, oh no, I forgot that what the United States is best at is subverting the regime of other countries and causing war.

[@jacobjones630]

I think you underestimate the US' allies intolerance for higher prices. Europe would put tremendous pressure on the US to end the war for it's badly needed Chinese commodities. Overall the US would have far less support from the world for making everything more expensive for the sake of an island that it recognizes is Chinese territory

[@darthsidius9631]

If it is war over Taiwan and microchips then Europe would have to tolerate because without microchips the situation would be much much worse

[@patrickjanecke5894]

Europe is no longer a consumption-based economy. Coupling that with excess industrial capacity of their own and a historical penchant for protectionism, there's much to be said about this being a blessing in disguise for some.

[@toddberkely6791]

doesnt the ukraine war prove you wrong? america said "jump" europe said "how high?" a war would seriously destabilise the EU though.

[@darthsidius9631]

@@toddberkely6791 the war would seriously destabilize eu but lack of microchips would absolutely destroy it so if eu isn't a total idiot it will back Taiwan

[@toddberkely6791]

@@darthsidius9631 "backing taiwan" would result in the end of microchip exports as well though. noway taiwan can keep up chip exports while being bombed and the china sea is full of mines and submarines... dude

[@6haha]

Industrial manufacturing decides everything

[@yopyop3241]

No, logistics determine everything. And China’s most critical logistical lifelines stretch way beyond the extent of China’s military reach and run past numerous US military bases.

[@6haha]

@@yopyop3241 China only cares the area around not like the US spreads power all around the world. So logistics is not an issue to China .

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

@@6haha Right, um you realize we won the war because we could get our troops to Germany, and Japan right? China is dependent on energy and food imports, the US exports those things. We also export weapons systems. Sure we won't have as many low quality tools, toys, or trash, but last I checked our aircraft are made here in the USA, our ships, our guns, our munitions. The things you need to win a war.

[@6haha]

@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket can you explain why Boeing is in big trouble now?

[@6haha]

@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket you forgot there is something called national reserve products includes food, oil, and etc. the US has a lot, so does China

[@Bad-Humor]

ive been waiting for this video

[@ThePear11]

Yes US production base will be safe but China will just let US hit it’s industrial base without retaliation😂

[@smallpeople172]

They have nothing non-nuclear to retaliate with... If they want to guarantee MAD then sure, they can. But in conventional warfare, the US has a crazy, five layer missile shield, extending from guam, over hawai'i, and the west coast.

[@thomashsiai6250]

Exactly… the US has Carrier strike groups, Submarines, Allied countries, and a chain of islands along with a hell of a lot of military bases encompassing the pacific… China has submarines and carriers sure, but not to US scale and not enough to strike the country without being hit in retaliation.

[@fernandoperez8587]

China has thousands of missiles that can strike the US. Let's not forget the thousands of Chinese operatives that have entered the US illegally.

[@HughMyron372]

To be honest I’m not sure if a modern conflict between two superpowers would come down to industry. I feel like whoever wins the first few large battles would win. It just takes too long to replace complicated military assets.

[@What7YiYue]

So your answer is China's shipyards are easier to be attacked than US shipyards? Who care about shipyards in a war that will end in 1 or 2 months? It takes years to build a ship and it takes 3x 4x more time for us shipyard to build a Aegis ship than China to build the same ship. 2, whatever missile you use the bomb the shipyard, china can do the same to the us based on first island chain. Whats more important in a war? Mil bases or shipyards?

[@killer-lordsmobile7099]

Boy, America sits next to china (Japan and S Korea) and it's not the other way around.

[@What7YiYue]

@@killer-lordsmobile7099 did you read what I wrote? Mil bases on first island chain.

[@RayCromwell]

@@What7YiYue US ship building happens in its East Coast, not on the island chains. China's shipyards are within striking distance, the US shipyards are in Virginia and Northeast. It's way way easier for the US to devastate Chinese shipyards. There's no "Pearl Harbor" scenario anymore, the US learned from that.

[@hola-hola-2523]

​@RayCromwell good luck with that. It would be a logistical nightmare to have most of the capacity concentrated in the East coast.

[@RayCromwell]

@@hola-hola-2523 most of it already is.

[@t5ruxlee210]

USA heavy industry wound up being seriously overbuilt and very much overmanned by the end of the "roaring twenties". That was quite an advantage over the following ten years of the Great Depression when it came to getting things moving again as war loomed. But there were also some very bad false starts like "government cost plus contracts" which resulted in companies like GMC creating labor shortages by pre hiring lots of skilled trades to sit around doing nothing while companies contracted to rehab old factories and build new ones cpuld not find sufficient workers to fulfill their needs...

[@SeanMendicino-n3d]

I think binkov is missing something here, which is the political aspect of how the conflict STARTS. If China has a legitimate justification, or at least enough to not isolate third parties - Europe, Russia - it can probably get a lot of countries to stand down on that blockade. I am also skeptical of Europe agreeing to a blockade. Even Korea and Japan will suffer major economic trouble from a war, and might decide to just drop Taiwan

[@neon.kalash3115]

The US doesn't need anyone else to instill its blockade lol

[@yopyop3241]

@@neon.kalash3115A Taiwan conflict severs China’s trade links to the world. Taiwan has missiles on mobile launchers that can reach to Korea or Vietnam. Who is going to stand with China when China’s trade has already been cut off? Everyone is going to join the sanctions. Everyone with a navy is going to join the blockade.

[@MrLougarou1000]

@@yopyop3241 oh yeah? the "international community" is going to sanction them again? 😂

[@TheAgentOfDeath]

How can you forget that China is the largest producer of electric cars and renewable energy. So an oil embargo would hurt but not devastating, especially since they can get plenty from Iran and Russia. And if China economy is going to be blocked off then so is the rest of Asia. Korea, Japan and SEA economies would also collapse as well.

[@aarondorobek4903]

Electric cars are frankly not relevant in this conversation at all, oil is used in plastics manufacturing, power generation, fertilizing agriculture, and powering ships. You can't switch all of these things over to renewable sources and it takes a while to do so. Iranian oil still has to get to China and and that's really only done by sea, which runs into the blockade question. Besides, the point of a blockade isn't to cut off all sources of a good, but to apply economic pressure. Even if China can still meet all of their oil demand, it's going to be at a significantly higher price, and that can cause a lot of damage to the economy and the state's finances.

[@danmoreman954]

You cannot be serious. A few EVs are not going to replace the loss of all that imported oil.

[@karenrobertsdottir4101]

@@danmoreman954 "A few EVs"? Nearly half of all Chinese car sales have a plug, and that number is growing fast.

[@WSOJ3]

So, does China just sit there and not hit back American bases in the region?? Does China not fire back hypersonic missiles at US shipyards on the US pacific coast? Because I think that why they are making those weapons in the first place. 🤔

[@ivybae9906]

Exactly. All of meriicas poodles in the region ie Japan and South Korea can be targets of both China and Russia's military. More importantly, China doesn't have to rescue anyone else in the region(both Rusia and NK are well armed by nucle@r) while meriiicans have too many poodles to take care of at one-time if China, Russia and NK decide to retaliate in different directions

[@yopyop3241]

Most projections have China sinking two American aircraft carriers and destroying dozens of American aircraft on the ground in the first few dozen minutes of a conflict. Those projections still have the US winning.

[@supersayianjim2]

​@@yopyop3241 define "win"?

[@yopyop3241]

@@supersayianjim2Pretty much any definition imaginable.

[@Cryosxify]

​@@supersayianjim2annihilating the PLAN 😂

[@OttoKreml]

Regarding trade, the strength of the US dollar allows it to simply buy out the export industries for wartime use. China would likely try to force theirs into wartime, and use their economic controls to stabilize the results. But given that the US currency is very heavily traded internationally and China's isn't, the US is way less dependant on it's own exports for currency stabilization. So essentially China has a way harder job in stabilizing the economy in a total war scenario beyond just the raw export and resource difference.

[@cspdx11]

Chinese capabilities and industry an order of magnitude more than USA

[@yopyop3241]

FYI, Binkov is way off on his assessment of China’s dependence on imported oil and gas. He appears to have neglected to consider the contribution of China’s imports of petroleum distillates.

[@standardengineer]

Can you provide some numbers?

[@yopyop3241]

@@standardengineer Binkov’s numbers match the numbers for China’s crude imports and domestic crude production. But we know for a fact that the US sends them 2-3x as much “petroleum liquids and gases” as it sends raw crude. We also know that they have a lot of excess refinery capacity, so if they’re buying those sorts of American refined products, it’s not because they want to, it’s because they have no choice. They’re buying the equivalent of about 0.5 million barrels per day of refined US petroleum products. That’s a significant volume compared to their ~11 million barrels of crude imports from all sources. I don’t know how much they’re buying from other countries, but if they’re buying that much from the hated USA, it’s definitely a substantial amount.

[@standardengineer]

@@yopyop3241 Interesting, thanks for the info.

[@kongwee1978]

China is building up green energy which will damn Oil-US dollar.

[@yopyop3241]

@@standardengineer This is just idle speculation on my part, but I bet countries like India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc. have overbuilt their refinery capacity. Geography means they get first crack at crude out of the Gulf. The thirst for petroleum downstream in China, Japan, and Korea means that the upstream refiners can ensure their ability to sell their excess refined products by using up the crude before it gets to NE Asia. The downstream countries are left to deal with refineries that are often stuck idle. “You need petroleum, China? Well we used up the cheap crude. We’ll sell you this refined product instead, but it’s significantly more expensive. Thank you for supporting our manufacturing industry! No doubt you would have preferred to buy crude yourself and use your own facilities and workers to refine it, but too bad. We bought it up, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Just suck it up and buy our expensive refined products.” (Is an Indian side-to-side head waggle appropriate here? I feel like it would be, but I don’t know.)

[@NotTheBomb]

Lockheed Martin is drooling to this video

[@austinlowrance5943]

We ended world war 2 with including war losses 300,000 minus the 2,500 we had that's 297,500 divided by 4 years assuming production was instantaneous at the war's start which it was not that would be 74,375 aircraft per year. This video is claiming that yearly production for world war 2 is 52,300 that would be 209,200 before losses the production would have to exceed the number at the end of the war because many planes were lost something is not tracking here. I think a mistake may have been made.

[@Shoelessjoe78]

Part of the problem for China is Russia's failure in Ukraine. The US and every other country in the Western aligned world is ramping up its production. China missed the proverbial boat back in 2022

[@Pineapple-co6fe]

Although, Russia is ramping up production even faster than Europe is. Its a major variable. But depending on what the situation in Ukraine is at the time will means it's an advantage to the east or west. Right now, Russia is doing well and producing an insane amount of artillery shells.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

The thing is that China overshadow them all, no matter how fast they ramp up their production. It will always be insignificant against the China in an active war economy. China not only outgun combine Western world but also outclass them in weapon advancement.

[@zix_zix_zix]

I don't agree with the assumption that the US would impose an embargo on Chinese commercial shipping. Even if the US was able to do that militarily (which itself is debatable), that embargo would cause an unprecedented economic crisis, which would cause the immediate collapse of the global economy. It is absurd to suggest that only China would be affected adversely by such an embargo! According to the Europe-based Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), in 2020, China made up a staggering 35% of _global_ gross manufacturing production. That is more than the combined output of the United States (12%), Japan (6%), Germany (4%), India (3%), South Korea (3%), Italy (2%), France (2%), and the United Kingdom (2%). Even when output is measured at value added (that is, gross production minus the cost of intermediate goods bought to produce those manufactures), which is not really relevant in this case as a measurement, China makes up 29% of global manufacturing. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that imposing an embargo against China is clearly not an option, if we don't wish to nuke the global economy and destroy ourselves along with China too!!

[@kertagin1]

also assumes the world abides said embargo

[@zix_zix_zix]

@@kertagin1 Exactly, our European economy would be completely destroyed overnight if Chinese products we need suddenly stopped coming in. The embargo is a totally insane plan that would cause our economic downfall!

[@yahoosucks234]

The impact on global manufacturing is going to occur either way. All Chinese ships would be uninsured and failure to comply with a US blockade could mean a total loss of inventory, which could bankrupt companies. Chinese production would be refocused from consumer manufacturing and energy would not be available for even producing it anyway. This is a war with global impact. On its face there are extreme economic consequences and both recent and past history is repleat with examples where wars between powers happened even though it wasn't good for the economy (that's not why wars are fought). I honestly think that this video gives China too much of a chance to fight this war. China is facing a debt crisis right now and a total end to most of the ways they make money plus effectively 0 outside financiers available might just implode the economy. Disruption to its infrastructure might mean that those huge megacities can't get enough food to the right places and people start to go hungry, and hungry people don't work, they riot

[@zix_zix_zix]

@@yahoosucks234 China is very committed to the cause of reuniting with Taiwan, as far as I know. They may be prepared to use force to achieve that one day, although I doubt they would, to be honest. The people across their shore are Chinese, like them, and obviously they wouldn't want to massacre them! However, the real question is why should we destroy the global economy for Taiwan????

[@obnoxiousvf]

Most chinese manufacturing is final assembly of consumer goods. Things like machine parts, electronics all come from outside

[@SilenTHerO78614]

Amateurs Talk Strategy, Professionals Talk Logistics - Gen. Omar Bradley

[@david7384]

The US civilian and military administration is packed full of political appointments, aka complete amateurs.

[@vlhc4642]

China has the world's largest merchant marine fleet and builds 2/3 of all cargo ships on the planet. America doesn't have the logistics capacity to fight China in Asia, but China actually do have the capacity to fight America in North America.

[@SilenTHerO78614]

@@vlhc4642 lol no they dont dumbass, plus all it takes is one hit on 3 gorges and it wipes out 1/3 of their industrial output.

[@SilenTHerO78614]

@@vlhc4642 lol keep dreaming. China is reliant on imports and has no domestic oil. Nevermind they couldn't invade when Americans own more guns than china has people.

[@SilenTHerO78614]

@@vlhc4642 china is too weak to do that lol

[@JonnoHR31]

One small correction, those Iron Ore figures are likely to be tonnes rather than cubic metres. I work in the Australian Iron Ore industry and I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about what would happen to Aussie Iron Ore exports, the ore price and our industry in this scenario. If the industry shut down overnight it would cripple our economy but at the same time conflict would likely increase global demand for Iron Ore, so surely a friendly nation could pick up some of the demand?

[@Mr_MikeB]

Well, you really think that so called friendly nation doesnt already have its own suppliers of that ore? And if they do, what they would want to switch you?

[@leqiaop1840]

why war would happen in the way the US desired? for example, why not north korea start another war in korean peninsula at the same time ? Or why not the middle east & iran start united military action against israel at the same time ?

[@yopyop3241]

The advanced democracies of the First Island Chain take priority over pretty much any other conceivable threat, so nothing really changes. North Korea? How far do you trust North Korea? They’re at least as likely to backstab China as they are to help China.

[@leqiaop1840]

@@yopyop3241 China does not need any help from North Korea. North Korea has own initiative to unite the korean peninsula. Check the status of 1924, where were US military bases in east Asia ? Nothing. The "trust" has no meaning, anyone could backstab others. would Japan surrender and be "loyal" to US forever?

[@yopyop3241]

@@leqiaop1840Full democracies (backed by freedom of speech, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, etc.) don’t backstab each other. Why do you think all of the mutually demilitarized borders that have ever existed have all been between full democracies. Indications are that both Koreas are losing interest in reunifying. If so, then North Korea is more interested in security guarantees and economic access than conquest. And if the PRC gets itself cut off from maritime trade, then the PRC will be in no position to offer significant security or economic access. Backstabbing the PRC during a conflict, just before the PRC gets itself flushed down the tube, would be a smart play.

[@leqiaop1840]

@@yopyop3241 there ist No such full democracy in Reality. I Hope you Not live in hype or Imagination.

[@yopyop3241]

@@leqiaop1840There are lots of close-enough-to-a-full-democracy-that-mutually-demilitarized-borders-are-workable. Backstabbing doesn’t happen with the advanced democracies. That’s a communist and dictatorship thing. Lesser forms of government. Really shortsighted of the Chinese to choose to go with an inherently untrustworthy form of government. A country with longer, more at-risk trade lifelines than anyone else really can’t afford to be disliked.

[@WickedMainahbub]

The U.S. is making 3 destroyers/frigates per year? My state shipyard builds 2 Arleigh Burkes per year...and it's not even close to the biggest military shipyard in the country. I used to work there and off the top of my head I know of 4 shipyards 2 on the East Coast 1 Gulf Coast and 1 West Coast that all build at minimum 2 destroyers/frigates per year so I think your info is off Binkov.

[@westrim]

You can look up the commissioning's, you know.

[@WickedMainahbub]

@@westrim and ingalls in Al is 2 a year as well and those are just the two building flight 3 Burkes you have freedom independence class lcs which I used to do the graphic design modifications on

[@GabCaleroYT]

The early war would be savage, but after the first and second years both would be facing modern equipment shortages (most equipment would be destroyed and due to complexity not be replenished faster than losses), lack of capable manpower (aging population and low birthrates, being the biggest drivers), political unrest and mutinies. The war would probably last a whole decade, but be far from a total war as neither has the political, demographic and economical capital to sustain one. It's end would be in the case of one of the sides crippling into civil war, or a truce between both nations due to war exhaustion. (Of course that's discounting the possible use of nukes)

[@ΠαζαρακιαΣιτι]

thats a very realistic view mate. i agree!

[@ΠαζαρακιαΣιτι]

modern eqipment cannot be made like they used too in ww2 because of all the electronics. in the past it was mostly steel.

[@schorschoppenheim1825]

I don’t see how that comes to China

[@哈哈哈-d8b]

​@@ΠαζαρακιαΣιτι即便无法快速制造，那中国的生产速度也比美国快的多，中国一年就能生产几千艘军舰，在战时状态下，其次即便是按照现在的存量，美国也远远无法在西太平洋战胜中国

[@lanceslegion]

Such a good episode! Thank you Gen. Blinkov!

[@J_X999]

We should be keeping a very close eye on China's green energy expansion. Nowadays, China dominates green energy production and adoption. Expanding so heavily on green energy could allow the Chinese to lessen their dependency on imported oil. Green energy isn't a complete game changer, but the US shouldn't ignore China's booming green energy industry.

[@havocgr1976]

Well the stats talk for themselves.In 2023 they build green energy that can power the entirety of France or the UK.In a single year!

[@delbertbaronlee8923]

That will depend if US can push close to China and succeed in blocking it. If US Navy dominates the seas. China is goner. Its massive shipbuilding capacity will be destroyed by US Navy along the coast. Whereas USA has two coastlines, even if China manages to inflict heavy damage on US Pacific Coast, they will still have an Atlantic coast functioning to counter China. So the deciding factor will happen during the early stage of war

[@delbertbaronlee8923]

If US had the upper hand at the early stage, China will be restrained to just defending. Sending massive amounts of missiles, drones, or even sending jets.. but jets have limited range. So thats it.. they can't sail out and China is stuck. Whereas US and Nato can secure the Atlantic and Suez Canal to block any Chinese entry (assuming China succeeding in controlling the pacific) and prepare for a counter attack. Russia is too $hity, the cannot beat NATO in Europe. We already see that in Ukraine. Unless China will be sending a large army accross Russia and join Putler for a European invasion. And that would be hilarious... I can't imagine the logistical nightmare to support such operations. Hahaha

[@哈哈哈-d8b]

美国没有能力摧毁中国海军基地，因为中国在西太平洋即便不算上陆基中程弹道导弹也对美国形成了优势，中国在西太平洋有大量携带高超音速武器的潜艇，还有很多先进的军舰，在战时美国很难靠近中国沿海3000公里

[@哈哈哈-d8b]

另外，中国实际上是世界上最具抗核打击能力的国家

[@哈哈哈-d8b]

​@@delbertbaronlee8923在战时中国海军更有能力会控制印度洋西太平洋，中国几百架改装的轰6甚至可能携带射程2000公里的超高音速反舰导弹

[@哈哈哈-d8b]

​@@delbertbaronlee8923美国不像中国一样拥有大量可携带超高音速反舰导弹的潜艇，美国海军大量老旧生锈是无法与中国海军作战的，可以说每过一天美国战胜中国的希望就少一天

[@03mai67]

Many things missing 1/ US MIC needs Chinese components, Raytheon admitted it 2/ US commercial companies won’t have access to Chinese capital goods, to TSMC chips so they will be hurt badly too.

[@luxeternity]

Yea...I would love to see how those ships move when china decide on full ban export on all processed raw materials

[@sebastianskwarczynski2435]

mistake at 16:45: the oil numbers should be millions, instead of billions

[@danfarrand9072]

Just tell me how many fasteners of every kind are still made in the US ? How about precision machine tools, electric transformers ? Lots of wishful thinking in this video. Plus, rather than fight China, I prefer having washing machines. I dont support war with China under almost any circumstances.

[@yopyop3241]

The US will be fine with buying Made-In-Mexico buttons, electric transformers, and washing machines. Wisconsin, Germany, and Mexico are all good at precision machine tools. There will definitely be hiccups as the replacement-for-China facilities come online around the globe, but 3D printing will help smooth out the most critical mismatches between supply and demand. We’re good at 3D printing. We also have overwhelming market power. The rest of the world will act as a buffer for us. We won’t face any shortages in anything until the entire globe empties out. We’ll be OK. China, on the other hand, seems to be sleepwalking into a buzzsaw.

[@schorschoppenheim1825]

Wise man.

[@schorschoppenheim1825]

@@yopyop3241dude, finally you will find,all those “made in Mexico , Germany, Japan“ is from ... (China). The key problems: you and your west fellows, can’t afford things made by your self. In the other word, in the current world order, you are stealing values from...China.

[@kennethferland5579]

You don't support war with the country that's sock puppeting your account, yea that sounds about right.

[@tiexiaowang7939]

Long before industrial output decides the war, agricultural output will

[@dominuslogik484]

Lol so china will starve first haha, I guess if they can't secure food shipments from India then yeah it might work out that way.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@dominuslogik484 china is calorically self sufficient. People will just have to eat less meat.

[@yopyop3241]

⁠@@hughmungus2760 And figure out how to create potassium from the ether. China is calorically self sufficient while using 5x-7x as much fertilizer and pesticide per hectare as American farmers. Fertilizer and pesticide with imported precursors. When China’s trade stops, famine will stalk the Chinese.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@yopyop3241 potash is primarily imported from Russia and central asia anyway. China also produces a large amount of it domestically which can be scaled up. china can also switch to less fertiliser intensive crops too. Again, it was able to fully feed itself in the 2000s with next to no imports.

[@yopyop3241]

@@hughmungus2760 Traditional agriculture transfers soil fertility to the edge of cities and towns. Crops contain nutrients from the soil. Some of those crops are conveyed to the cities and towns to feed the people there. Those city dwellers excrete out the nutrients. Since no one wants to carry other people’s excretions long distances, the nutrients end up at the edge of the city/town. That process has gone on continuously for longer in China than anywhere else. Nowhere else had as extreme variation in fertility between areas close to the cities/towns vs the areas farther away. Now ask yourself, where were the edges of the cities and towns for most of Chinese history vs where are the edges today? China has paved over almost all of its most fertile land. The crop land that remains is remarkably low fertility. Chinese farmers aren’t idiots for using 5x-7x as much fertilizer per hectare as their US counterparts. That’s what it takes to get a decent crop out of their nutrient-depleted soil.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

Alot of propagandists and ideologs in this channels audience.

[@feff1236]

probably bots

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

@feff1236 some are likely but I've seen alot of comments and accounts dismissed as bots when people don't wish to put forth a counter argument.

[@bt7528]

Why are all of your comments negative

[@richdobbs6595]

Okay, it seems like my last post didn't get deleted, so I'll try again with this one: If China is in a full scale war with the USA, how is it going to acquire South East Asia? Instead, I would postulate that Myanmar would be neutralized and Vietnam and Thailand would be fully capable of maintaining independence and would rather be aligned with the neutral block, rather than being in China's sphere of influence. Laos would just be ignored.

[@theone3792thatis]

Industrial output, manpower, and resources decide all wars.

[@yopyop3241]

China cannot protect its critical logistical lifelines. Even dinky little Taiwan has the ability to cut China’s maritime links to the rest of the world.

[@huangyao6699]

​@@yopyop3241 The world will change, China will change.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

​@@yopyop3241 No, they haven't. Taiwan is toast in a few hours by Chinese rocket force.

[@yopyop3241]

⁠@@ajaykumarsingh702Taiwan has truck-mounted anti-ship missiles. China probably won’t be able to take them all out (and more importantly, the commercial shipping lines and their insurers certainly won’t believe that they have all been taken out) until the PLA has boots on the ground over the entire island. That will take months at a minimum. Look at Russia’s inability to hunt down Ukraine’s HIMARS….

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

Man power is not relevant in air and sea wars

[@DirkDiggler-qp3vm]

You left out China imports all of its Fuel and hence China would be crippled.

[@SilenTHerO78614]

Yeah but thats why china has that pipeline for the russian oil. If necessary they could speed up its construction and would have to be heavily guarded

[@yopyop3241]

@@SilenTHerO78614Capacity is only a tiny fraction of what China would need.

[@elmateo77]

@@yopyop3241They could always ship oil by truck if necessary or build new pipelines in a hurry. Russia is the second largest exporter of oil in the world and shares a border with china, how to get the oil there isn't exactly an insurmountable problem. Chinese oil stocks would last roughly 6 months which is enough time to get something worked out with Russia.

[@yopyop3241]

@@elmateo77 Like I said, nowhere close to enough capacity. Do you know how big oil tankers are? How many trucks it would take to replace that capacity? What the road conditions are for a drive across Siberia? China can last six months only with strict rationing and without any major oil expenditures. You know, like the oil demands associated with an amphibious move on a neighbor. If China isn’t planning to surrender right away, it can’t last more than a couple of months.

[@kanlu5199]

You left out the fact that China is now the first in EVO cars. This reduces fuel requirements a lot.

[@tedball8677]

"Don't start a land war in Asia," the saying goes. OK, putting that aside, you correctly point out the ocean would be the likely approach. Considering industrial outputs for both sides, may I suggest an additional consideration: the necessary _inputs_ for each country's industrial base and each country's population. Looking at the necessary industrial inputs -- all sorts of raw materials, oil, food for military and civilian populations, etc -- China's logistical chain for all of those inputs is quite long, is seaborne, and those inputs are critical for keeping the lights on and the population alive, much less fighting a long war with an opponent like the US. TL;DR That's a no-win situation for China. Full stop. China imports more oil/oil equivalents than anyone on the planet. The *daily* energy needs for China is something like 12 or 13M barrels of oil (or oil equivalents). About 70% of that 13M-barrel supply comes from the Mid-East on the longest supply run for oil deliveries on the planet. All that Mid-East oil heading for Asia goes by India, through the Malacca Strait, by Singapore and eventually to southeast Asia. The route through the Malacca Strait is the shortcut (!) to get to southeast Asia by sea. If China goes to war with anyone who has even a small navy, it would not take much to park some surface ships in the Indian Ocean (and submarines underneath) and cut the oil supply line to China. Even if the oil ships avoid the 800 km of the narrow Malacca Strait, they have to sail much, much farther, extending the longest oil shipping supply line by maybe 1/3? BTW that alternate route would also be staked out by an opponent of China. Point is, without 13M barrels per day, China would have a lot of trouble keeping the lights on, the population fed, and the country running, even on a reduced wartime footing. It also would mean the end of most of China's industrial processes, once their reserves of industrial inputs are exhausted. Then there's food. I believe China imports more food than anyone else, most of that by bulk shipping. They grow a lot of food also, sure. Yet they import most of the _inputs_ they need to grow that food. IOW shipping anything to China during a shooting war will probably drop by 80% because shipping companies *do not* want to be in a war zone. (Note that almost all shippers are out of the Black Sea by about 90% since RUS invaded UKR. The RUS "ghost market" ships still move oil and other goods to buyers for a big discount, but they do not ship serious amounts of anything to/from the Black Sea.) Yes, China would have reserves of the inputs they use. Yet they import more of the key inputs than anyone else: oil, food, raw materials. Cut those supply lines by 1/2 or 2/3 or more and China burns through the reserves.... then things get very bad very quickly. Food shortages and eventual famine, de-industrialization with no oil/energy, and a population of over 1 billion people in dire need of food and energy to survive. There's no version of a war between the US and a no-food/no-oil China that ends well for China. This long list of things that could go wrong assumes that no one else in China's neighborhood decides to attack China's logistical supply lines either. China is not on good terms with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, or any of the rest of its neighbors. Any of them could make supply chain problems become nightmares for China while China and the US shoot at each other. At what point would China, faced with the supply line problems above, go "new-Q-ler"? (sound it out, it should sound like the words "new" "clear"). So..... none of us should want a war between China and the US. Not China, not the US, and not the rest of the planet.

[@The136th]

Those oil are to support export. China can power and feed itself just fine. It's the rest of the world that's gonna get shortage.

[@yopyop3241]

@@The136th20% of China’s GDP is from exports, but more than 70% of China’s oil usage is from exports?

[@The136th]

@@yopyop3241Give me that joule rather than dollar value.

[@yopyop3241]

That makes it worse for China. Think about it. About half of China’s domestic economy is in real estate and infrastructure construction. Cement, steel beams, buildings, and bridges. Exports are manufactured consumer products. Washing machines, toys, clothing, etc. Compare: (Cement, steel beams, buildings, and bridges) vs (washing machines, toys, clothing, etc.). Which set gets a larger proportion of its value from its embedded energy? Which set gets a larger proportion of its value from the ingenuity, skills, and effort of the workers involved?

[@The136th]

@@yopyop3241 "About half of China’s domestic economy is in real estate and infrastructure construction." China produce more value added in Manufacturing than EU US and Jap combined. WTF are you smoking lol. China produce 90%+ of all US Pharmaceutical and Processed rare earth component. Please blockade China lol. You Westerners are living in lala land. It's 2024 not 1994 anymore

[@regis-vq3mv9eu2r]

Excellent charts, graphs and overlays. Puppet master!

[@peoplez129]

The biggest problem for the US is that it couldn't even ramp up war production during a time of war, even if it wanted to. Why? Because the US doesn't have the raw material, it doesn't have the factories, it doesn't have the equipment, and it doesn't even have enough to defend all of that even if it did have it. You can't make manufacturing machines out of thin air. These are big heavy machine that require not just materials and time, but also expertise that no longer exists in the US. Not even 1 in 10,000 people in the US have the expertise required to run such machines. China on the other hand, can simply produce lower quality in high numbers. What's one top tier jet vs 100 mediocre jets. You simply can't win. Now multiply that by everything. They lose 100 jets, they'll have 100 more up and running in a week. US loses something, it takes months if not years to replace it. Just look how long it takes to build a single carrier or jet or tank in the US. They could speed it up, sure, but it wouldn't be enough, and eventually things will run out. The US has almost no mining activities left for raw resources. The US has almost no metal foundries left, so it couldn't even process the ore, let alone turn it into something usable, not at adequate war production levels. And then there's expertise again....when you have a bunch of completely inexperienced people, not only will their work product be inferior, that will cause issues with production at every level. Not just slow downs, but complete stoppages, dangerous working conditions, and inferior parts used in construction that cause a plethora of logistical issues to the point stuff will be breaking down all the time. Anyone who believes the US can muster anywhere near an adequate war time production is living in a fantasy.

[@danmoreman954]

So many factually incorrect statements. Where to start. We have more jets and better jets. We have access to plenty of raw materials. Canada and Mexico are bigger US trading partners than China. It’ll be fine. And we can shut off 80% of CCP oil consumption fairly quickly. That will shut down the Chinese economy quickly.

[@Wolf-zr2ou]

@@danmoreman954 You forgot about their food imports phosphate imports copper imports etc. China simply CANNOT last long in a war against the USA

[@garrettfulks2932]

Lol China imports 60% of its oil overseas. Also “the U.S. has no raw materials,” 😂😂

[@changshingeng]

@@garrettfulks2932 cannot agree more. US could make its own jet with non-Chinese raw earth and cue its own peopele with non-Chinese medical meterials. Besides, the living standard will be higher without Chinese cheap products. People will support the current party without any thoughts of switching to the other.

[@gfjhsh-w7g]

@garrettfulks2932 You forgot who controls the Persian Gulf🤣👉🗡⏰

[@jaydunnavoci]

USA 2024 = Japan 1941. China 2024 = USA 1941 (when it comes to production potential).

[@brantlyb2b35]

Too many minorities in usa unlike in 1941

[@ShinjiHirako777]

@@brantlyb2b35You forget the massive de-industrialization under NAFTA and preferring the environment over business. Also, the Cold War put America on a diplomatic, not a production footing.

[@RouGeZH]

That's complete bullshit. Output in 2019: 1 - China - 28.4% of Global Manufacturing Output 2 - United States - 16.6% of Global Manufacturing Output Output in 1937: 1 - USA - 29% 6 - Japan: around 5%.

[@Darkcamera45]

@@brantlyb2b35 you forget that in 1941 vast portions of the farming population was black, many many minorities like European immigrants contributed greatly to the war and mind if I ask what race do you claim to be cause chances are at one point in history your people were immigrants too

[@戰術推演]

In 1941, the United States accounted for 70% of the world's oil production, how much oil does China produce now?

[@kongwee1978]

This clip doesn't present thousands of DF-21 ICBM that aim at sea and land target at 2000km away from coast.

[@yopyop3241]

Ukraine has successfully stymied Russia and kept its best platforms intact (fighter jets, HIMARS, etc.) by simply moving them around. We will likely see similar results in a conflict over Taiwan.