Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (976842)	10/31/2016 7:34:25 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1575883

China probably wouldn't be fighting a guerrilla war. It would be a more conventional one. The problem is that China has a large population advantage. Their equipment isn't anywhere near as good as ours, but all they have to do is wait until we run out of bullets and then they still outnumber us 10 to 1. So it depends on what the war is. Say, over the Spratley's? We would win that. It might be expensive, or might not. It depends on our defenses, some of which have never been used in combat. It is a question of whether or not they can effective saturate our ship defenses + 1. Likewise with our planes. Can we protect our tankers from a mass attack? No fuel and our planes have to splash in. For China, we need Mobile Offshore Bases. Air craft carriers have reached the end of their utility. A MOB can produce a lot more electricity than a carrier, and that means it can load up with lasers. Rendering swarm attacks a lot less useful.

To: RMF who wrote (976842)	10/31/2016 10:42:15 AM
From: Bonefish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575883

With a lame duck Hillary in there I'd expect numerous wars to break out.