![]() |
Originally Posted by Lowslung
(Post 4027202)
Fangs, while I don’t agree with all of your positions, you’re a generally reasonable and intelligent person. Explain this one to me. I understand that China gets far more oil from gulf states than just about anyone else. What I don’t understand is how turning off X amount of global supply hurts them more than us. The fact that it’s a global market has been discussed ad nauseam. Price and supply issues hit us both. Xi has the dictator’s luxury of being able to ignore public opinion (at least for a while), while the American public will very quickly tire of energy shortages, even if there were a strategic benefit to the country. I just don’t see how this play works out in our favor.
GDP per capita in the US is over $85,000. GDP per capita in China is less than $14,000. Just as increased costs of basic items in the US hurt the poor more than they do the rich, increased prices of basic items (which fuel is) takes a larger bite out of China’s discretionary income than it does that of the US. Similarly, while the US imports a large percentage of fruits and vegetables - predominately from Mexico - it is overall a big exporter of corn, wheat, and other grains. China struggles to be self sufficient in food, and greatly depends on imports of fertilizer from the Middle East and from Russia. Fertilizer, made from natural gas, is also a commodity, and approximately 25% of the worlds supply comes from the Middle East. Either elevated prices or even merely less availability, will have a more profound effect on China than on us. in fact, a prolonged blockade of Hormuz by the USN might cause some serious questioning in China about just how badly they want to retake Taiwan. |
Taiwan. More than Alaska is American, Formosa like Hong Kong, is Chinese. A deal nexus, as well there to be struck.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4027280)
With PRC of all nations, it's a little more complicated than just the global commodity price.
By purchasing oil directly from IR, presumably in violation of sanctions, they actually have a supply that is somewhat independent from both the global commodity price and also potentially from sanctions that might be levied against PRC in the event that *they* do something crazy. I've stated ad nauseam that I don't know what the motive(s) were for this war, but there are a few objective fringe benefits, if not outright motives. With regard to PRC... 1. Shows US is willing to engage (at least some of their plans for ROC/SCS likely rely on US inaction). 2. Demonstrates that we can still execute large scale shock-and-awe in the maritime/air domains. 3. Reminds them that we can (and will) interfere with their interests in other parts of the world... they can't rely on a Taiwan situation being confined to the first island chain. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027477)
How about 4) uses up very expensive missile interceptors and other ordnance at an incredible pace, thereby literally weakening our own position outside the immediate theater.
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027477)
How about 4) uses up very expensive missile interceptors and other ordnance at an incredible pace, thereby literally weakening our own position outside the immediate theater.
*certain ordnance. The mainstay of our aerial ordinance is vast. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4027482)
*certain ordnance. The mainstay of our aerial ordinance is vast.
It's ok, we'll just print more money to finance it all. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027487)
I'm sure it is. But a Shahed drone costs about $35K per. The DoD (sorry, DoW) states that our interceptors range from $250K to $2M... Each.
It's ok, we'll just print more money to finance it all. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027487)
I'm sure it is. But a Shahed drone costs about $35K per. The DoD (sorry, DoW) states that our interceptors range from $250K to $2M... Each.
It's ok, we'll just print more money to finance it all. Drones are so slow and non-reactive that it doesn't take $ophisticated systems like AIM-9/120, PAC-3, SM-2, etc to splash them. Guess that's another fringe benefit, we got to try out out gear against some of the new asymmetric stuff before a main event in the Pacific. We can practice shooting down model airplanes with bottle rockets. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027487)
I'm sure it is. But a Shahed drone costs about $35K per. The DoD (sorry, DoW) states that our interceptors range from $250K to $2M... Each.
It's ok, we'll just print more money to finance it all. |
"Since the Iran war began in late February, the United States has burned through around 1,100 of its long-range stealth cruise missiles built for a war with China, close to the total number remaining in the U.S. stockpile. The military has fired off more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, roughly 10 times the number it currently buys each year.
The Pentagon used more than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles in the war, at more than $4 million a pop, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles, leaving inventories worrisomely low, according to internal Defense Department estimates and congressional officials. The Iran war has significantly drained much of the U.S. military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries like Russia and China, and it has forced the United States to find ways to scale up production to address the depletions, Trump administration and congressional officials say." So while we spend $$$ like it's going out of style, Russian oil revenues *double* month-to-month. Talk about a transfer of wealth few voters thought they were signing up for ... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands