[CoolestBeans]

Despite the hope for a more democratic China in the 80s being mostly dead, contemporary China must still reckon with the immediate economic disaster being an military agressor and being sharply cut off from American trade would entail. By slowly decoupling US-China trade, we remove that economic risk for Chinese strategists, making agression more viable.

[fnordpiglet]

I think China also needs to reckon with confronting adversaries with continuous deployment and a seasoned veteran force from the line to the top generals, while Chinas military hasn’t been meaningfully deployed beyond exercises in 60 years. No one - not a single person - has any meaningful warfare experience in China - while the US and it’s allies, for better or worse, is highly skilled and experienced in continuous warfare for the last 60 years.

[rightbyte]

For real? You think the losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow gave valuable experience that in any way offsets the attrition on the armed forces?

[proudeu]

I mean US is aggressor state, so has experience in invading other countries. If they wanted to invade China they would have some experience in doing so. I just hope EU leaders won’t follow them this time.

[sudosysgen]

The US does not have any more experience in defeating near-peer militaries in a defensive position, as the last time it attempted (and failed) to do so was against China.

Iraq and Afghanistan may very well be more detrimental than useful. They made the US military focus on aspects of warfare that aren't relevant to a near peer conflict, and unlearning that is a difficult task that's currently consuming a lot of resources.

[CapstanRoller]

USAmerica now only has experience fighting against much weaker opponents. Almost everyone who remembers WW2 is dead.

When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.

Full-scale war with near-peer or peer adversaries? USA is SOL.

But aside from the loud-mouthed war hawks or perma-doomers on YouTube, I don't think anyone in the US or China (or Russia, for that matter) with decision-making power really has the appetite for direct open conflict, since it means the end of all things.

Expect more proxy wars like Ukraine...

[_kbh_]

> When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.

Russia and America have fought albeit slightly indirectly.

US soldiers engaged Wagner in Syria in the Battle of Khasham.

Rough outcome of this battle.

US / SDF side - 1 wounded

Wagner / Syrian government side - 50 - 100 dead. upto 200 wounded.

[rightbyte]

What is your point? That soldiers die if you shell them?