With embryonic WWIII bubbling along nicely, it's time to reflect on wider context.
I refer, of course, to the 2015 Rand Report which recommended that the US go to war with China; a war that is eminently winnable, if not with Acceptable Collateral Damage (ACD). I had to fossick about a bit to decipher ACD in more comprehendable terms and it turns out this is a euphemism for Australia.
Right on! I thought to myself. Oz has, indeed some elements of risk in the event of WWIII. Just up the street from where I live, there is the Raytheon missile launching site, which would be nuclear-armed of course. There is a slight possibility that China might lob a reprisal nuke at this during the hustle and bustle of WWIII activities, and I feel somewhat offended at being dismissed as "collateral damage".
My neighbours regard my misgivings as typical of my self-centredness and lack of patriotism, but then they are fully vaxxed and all wear badges proclaiming "We are ridin' with Biden". Fair enough, I suppose. But there are another seven US military installations in our Northern Territory and it seems to make sense for China to nuke these too, maybe even pre-emtively. That means we will all be radioactive dust if Pompeo gets his way.
I am sure Xi reads The Daily Beagle so here's a message, mate. "The chances of a US missile actually making it to China are pretty remote. How about you save your arsenal for better targets and just get your Darwin harbour spies to just do a quick hand job in despatching these weapons. And while we are on this subject, could you ask Singapore to not cancel our national fuel shipments over something so petty as a war?
Well, you can be a bit more 'rest assured' that China's plan are, I am told in good confidence, ground invasion of Australia.
China "only" has 230 nukes, most of which are bomber-plane carrier types (I.E. the old fashioned 'drop from the sky'). The only nuclear risk you face is from Russia's ICBMs, or maybe North Korea's one working ICBM-MRV, but I think the Norks are saving it for the South Koreans.
Russia is not likely to see Australia as a meaningful threat. To my knowledge they have not contributed much to the Ukraine war - that's mainly Europe and the US.
Australia does not have nuclear missiles either, to my knowledge. They have missile launch facilities as you note, but they're the mid-range, conventional kind, more for anti-shipping than territory. It is why they're interested in the nuclear subs but that order won't be completed any time soon, and even if it was, hitting Australia wouldn't solve the 'sub problem'.
China are likely planning ground invasion for a couple of reasons:
1) They've Belt-and-Road-Initiative'd every small island between China and Australia (they have several shipping ports set up)
2) New Zealand is fully compromised (good forward base for them to work from)
3) Victoria, near to New Zealand, is fully compromised (even to the point of Xi praising Dan Andrews)
That is to say, the Chinese have carefully set up a bunch of land backdoors, which they wouldn't do if they planned to nuke the land. It is most likely they realise in a war they will desperately need both the iron and the coal from Australia to sustain their war machine. Nuking that infrastructure is a bad idea for them.
I don't think Australia has much in the way of meaningful ground forces to repel the waves-and-waves of disposable men China has. Usually nukes are served on larger sized armies with meaningful forces.
On Chinese invasion... oh that? I should have mentioned that all those Chinese who CIA boss Bob Hawke made Australian citizens, all 22,000 of them, plus the plane arrivals since, many of whom also are now Australian citizens, have been sent money by the CCP to buy up Australian residential and arable land. As citizens, they are exempt from the FIRB and they now own about half of our 4% arable land. As housing prices crash, they will buy up the remainder. Thus, invasion complete and not a shot fired.
On Medvedev's comments, I think TASS misinterpreted his words--basically reversing the order of events, at least that's the way I read it. His statement on Telegramwas:
"Secondly, once the Third World War breaks out, unfortunately it will not be on tanks or even on fighter jets. Then everything will definitely be turned to dust,"
In other words, after WW3 starts, tanks and fighter jets won't matter anymore since everything will be turned to dust at that point (presumably implying nukes)
I will admit I am not a native Russian speaker, and your translation does make far more sense to me. I was under the impression TASS were an official Russian news service, but if they can't even translate Russian properly it's going to be difficult to find a reliable news source.
What do you think the impact of the RAND paper will be? They suggest halting NATO efforts in Ukraine to prepare for the bigger dog, China. I was under the impression that the US gov usually follows the recommendations of this think tank, but current actions seem to suggest otherwise.
I think RAND is largely used to justify the US government going to war (in much the same way the Iraq WMDs papers did), and they're less concerned with the truth or the consequences, so when RAND invariably say war is a bad idea (much in the same way it turns out WMDs didn't exist in Iraq), the US government won't care, and even if they did, they're in too deep.
So odds are - and I like your thinking there - that the US plans to also go to war with China, per RAND recommendations.
For a long time I thought that the GAE wouldn't have the balls to try this, but it seems like they will throw a last hail mary to try to save the empire.
With embryonic WWIII bubbling along nicely, it's time to reflect on wider context.
I refer, of course, to the 2015 Rand Report which recommended that the US go to war with China; a war that is eminently winnable, if not with Acceptable Collateral Damage (ACD). I had to fossick about a bit to decipher ACD in more comprehendable terms and it turns out this is a euphemism for Australia.
Right on! I thought to myself. Oz has, indeed some elements of risk in the event of WWIII. Just up the street from where I live, there is the Raytheon missile launching site, which would be nuclear-armed of course. There is a slight possibility that China might lob a reprisal nuke at this during the hustle and bustle of WWIII activities, and I feel somewhat offended at being dismissed as "collateral damage".
My neighbours regard my misgivings as typical of my self-centredness and lack of patriotism, but then they are fully vaxxed and all wear badges proclaiming "We are ridin' with Biden". Fair enough, I suppose. But there are another seven US military installations in our Northern Territory and it seems to make sense for China to nuke these too, maybe even pre-emtively. That means we will all be radioactive dust if Pompeo gets his way.
I am sure Xi reads The Daily Beagle so here's a message, mate. "The chances of a US missile actually making it to China are pretty remote. How about you save your arsenal for better targets and just get your Darwin harbour spies to just do a quick hand job in despatching these weapons. And while we are on this subject, could you ask Singapore to not cancel our national fuel shipments over something so petty as a war?
Well, you can be a bit more 'rest assured' that China's plan are, I am told in good confidence, ground invasion of Australia.
China "only" has 230 nukes, most of which are bomber-plane carrier types (I.E. the old fashioned 'drop from the sky'). The only nuclear risk you face is from Russia's ICBMs, or maybe North Korea's one working ICBM-MRV, but I think the Norks are saving it for the South Koreans.
Russia is not likely to see Australia as a meaningful threat. To my knowledge they have not contributed much to the Ukraine war - that's mainly Europe and the US.
Australia does not have nuclear missiles either, to my knowledge. They have missile launch facilities as you note, but they're the mid-range, conventional kind, more for anti-shipping than territory. It is why they're interested in the nuclear subs but that order won't be completed any time soon, and even if it was, hitting Australia wouldn't solve the 'sub problem'.
China are likely planning ground invasion for a couple of reasons:
1) They've Belt-and-Road-Initiative'd every small island between China and Australia (they have several shipping ports set up)
2) New Zealand is fully compromised (good forward base for them to work from)
3) Victoria, near to New Zealand, is fully compromised (even to the point of Xi praising Dan Andrews)
That is to say, the Chinese have carefully set up a bunch of land backdoors, which they wouldn't do if they planned to nuke the land. It is most likely they realise in a war they will desperately need both the iron and the coal from Australia to sustain their war machine. Nuking that infrastructure is a bad idea for them.
I don't think Australia has much in the way of meaningful ground forces to repel the waves-and-waves of disposable men China has. Usually nukes are served on larger sized armies with meaningful forces.
On Chinese invasion... oh that? I should have mentioned that all those Chinese who CIA boss Bob Hawke made Australian citizens, all 22,000 of them, plus the plane arrivals since, many of whom also are now Australian citizens, have been sent money by the CCP to buy up Australian residential and arable land. As citizens, they are exempt from the FIRB and they now own about half of our 4% arable land. As housing prices crash, they will buy up the remainder. Thus, invasion complete and not a shot fired.
On Medvedev's comments, I think TASS misinterpreted his words--basically reversing the order of events, at least that's the way I read it. His statement on Telegramwas:
"Secondly, once the Third World War breaks out, unfortunately it will not be on tanks or even on fighter jets. Then everything will definitely be turned to dust,"
In other words, after WW3 starts, tanks and fighter jets won't matter anymore since everything will be turned to dust at that point (presumably implying nukes)
I will admit I am not a native Russian speaker, and your translation does make far more sense to me. I was under the impression TASS were an official Russian news service, but if they can't even translate Russian properly it's going to be difficult to find a reliable news source.
Well I don't know any Russian either! I'm just quoting the source.
What do you think the impact of the RAND paper will be? They suggest halting NATO efforts in Ukraine to prepare for the bigger dog, China. I was under the impression that the US gov usually follows the recommendations of this think tank, but current actions seem to suggest otherwise.
I think RAND is largely used to justify the US government going to war (in much the same way the Iraq WMDs papers did), and they're less concerned with the truth or the consequences, so when RAND invariably say war is a bad idea (much in the same way it turns out WMDs didn't exist in Iraq), the US government won't care, and even if they did, they're in too deep.
So odds are - and I like your thinking there - that the US plans to also go to war with China, per RAND recommendations.
For a long time I thought that the GAE wouldn't have the balls to try this, but it seems like they will throw a last hail mary to try to save the empire.
Another thing, are you the same guy writing the battlebeagle account on twitter?
The Daily Beagle's Twitter account and all thoughtcrime responses can be found here:
https://twitter.com/TDBSubstack