Military Review

Experts predicted the defeat of the United States in a military conflict with China in the Asia-Pacific region

45
The United States is unable to confront China in the western Pacific and will be defeated in the event of an open conflict. This was stated by specialists from the US Study Center at the University of Sydney in Australia.


Experts predicted the defeat of the United States in a military conflict with China in the Asia-Pacific region


According to Australian experts, the United States has lost all its advantage in the western part of the Pacific Ocean and is no longer able to resist China, which is constantly building up its forces in this region. Experts call the cause of the loss of superiority a financial crisis that arose due to "constant delays and unpredictability of funds."

The US defense strategy in the Indo-Pacific is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. This is basically a crisis born of a mismatch between Washington’s strategic goals and available funds

- says the study.

Experts point out that because of this, the Pentagon has no opportunity to increase the size of the army and purchase new weapons, and the cancellation and delay of the introduction of new programs led to a lag in the modernization of the armed forces. Also, the lack of funding, according to the Australians, is influenced by the continued involvement of the United States in military conflicts in the Middle East, lasting more than 20 years and distracting funds that could be directed to "confrontation with superpowers."

In connection with the loss of US positions in the western Pacific, experts urge Washington, as well as its allies, Japan and Australia, to revise their military budgets upwards, in order to counter the rapidly developing China. According to reports, the Chinese armed forces have already deployed about 1,5 thousands of short-range ballistic missiles, 450 medium-range missiles, 160 intermediate-range missiles and hundreds of long-range ground-based cruise missiles and continue to build up forces.

Previously, the Pentagon announced that they intend to mark out missile launchers in the Asia-Pacific region for medium-range missiles "to counter China’s aggressive plans."
45 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. MoJloT
    MoJloT 20 August 2019 11: 26
    +10
    As they say, you won’t check, you don’t know) Good luck to everyone))
    1. Infinity
      Infinity 20 August 2019 12: 04
      +3
      hi
      Better not check.
      1. MoJloT
        MoJloT 20 August 2019 12: 09
        +3
        Better not check.
        I see no particular reason to worry about them. hi Especially considering their number
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 20 August 2019 12: 20
          +8
          Quote: MoJloT
          I see no particular reason to worry about them.

          Both countries have nuclear weapons, one of them is on our borders
          Quote: MoJloT
          Especially considering their number

          there are many of them, but we are not enough.
  2. Marconi41
    Marconi41 20 August 2019 11: 29
    +3
    Well, that’s the answer to why the US withdrew from the agreement on medium-range missiles. Russia has nothing to do with it at all. And if the states do not deploy such systems in Europe, then this assumption will be confirmed.
    1. MoJloT
      MoJloT 20 August 2019 11: 37
      +4
      And if the states do not deploy such systems in Europe, then this assumption will be confirmed.
      Who knows what is already deployed there, i.e. what is actually in the missile defense silos.
      1. Marconi41
        Marconi41 20 August 2019 11: 40
        0
        Quote: MoJloT
        Who knows what is already deployed there, i.e. what is actually in the missile defense silos.

        I still think that the ABM states are more interesting there than just a launcher for Axes, in any case.
        1. MoJloT
          MoJloT 20 August 2019 11: 41
          +1
          I still think that the ABM states are more interesting there
          Maybe, in principle, one does not exclude the other ...
    2. Normal ok
      Normal ok 20 August 2019 11: 43
      +2
      Quote: Marconi41
      Well, that’s the answer to why the United States withdrew from the agreement on medium-range missiles.

      Where is the answer? Some "experts" expressed their view, which an anonymous author of the article brought to us in a free retelling. OBS in action.
      1. Pedrodepackes
        Pedrodepackes 20 August 2019 12: 24
        0
        Quote: Normal ok
        Some "experts" expressed their opinion

        The fact is that the USA, withdrawing from the agreement, noted that its participants were the Russian Federation and the USA, and China, having the appropriate technology, was not included in it. So they came up with the idea to withdraw from the agreement and sign it again, expanding the number of participants, China refused. Now the US moves are predictable.
        1. DMoroz
          DMoroz 20 August 2019 13: 35
          0
          The idea is simple, demonizing Russia, mattresses are squeezing out of the EU an increase in contributions to the NATO budget, and Japan and Australia are not included in this gang, hence it is necessary to demonize China, so that allies in the Asia-Pacific region can be encouraged to increase military budgets and, as a result, to buy mattress mattresses. weapons. And any expert opinion is ordered by the paying one ... Therefore, IMHO, the main message in this "expert" opinion:
          experts urge Washington, as well as its allies, Japan and Australia, to review military budgets upward
  3. SHIPS
    SHIPS 20 August 2019 11: 30
    -3
    The sad ending of politics.
    It all ended with tacking between the two giants.
    "They called you an earthworm."
    But trying to pit the USA and China in vain hopes.
  4. yehat
    yehat 20 August 2019 11: 33
    +2
    but I’m wondering how the deployment of coastal defense complexes of its coast and short-range missiles suddenly became aggressive plans.
    Of course, China has aggressive plans, but why summarize all its activity under them?
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 20 August 2019 11: 36
    0
    US Center for the Study of the University of Sydney in Australia.
    Even in Australia, they doubted the power of the United States. The Americans did not understand that it is impossible to grasp the immensity. It is not as easy as it seems to be everywhere and at once, and even to threaten with one's military "might". Having once swung to conquer the world, tomorrow you can lose what you have. And such examples are enough in world history. Even with the American economy "not a cap for Senka."
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 August 2019 11: 52
      +3
      They conducted an objective analysis. The pace of building fleets, missiles.
      Americans are also soberly assessing the situation. China has become an economic
      superpower and military power number two in the world. Russia is supported
      only ICBMs, while China has everything in large quantities.
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 20 August 2019 12: 04
        0
        They conducted an objective analysis.
        I agree with you. But you try to explain it to the kneeling before the United States (comments below).
      2. kanskebron
        kanskebron 21 August 2019 07: 30
        -2
        China has become the world's number two economic superpower and military power.

        PLA ALREADY the strongest army in the world in terms of basic indicators of combat readiness.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 21 August 2019 07: 59
          -1
          Maybe only in the land component. In the fleet, they are still significantly behind the United States. And on aviation too. According to the combat experience, the gap is significant. They also have little ICBMs. But the Chinese armed forces are growing (qualitatively) very quickly.
    2. SHIPS
      SHIPS 20 August 2019 11: 54
      -4
      :-)
      Do not make up. Some representatives of a certain university doubted it.
      ANZUS on the spot, exercises are being conducted, arms deliveries too.
  6. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 20 August 2019 11: 43
    +2
    The US defense strategy in the Indo-Pacific is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. This is basically a crisis born of a mismatch between Washington’s strategic goals and available funds
    The message is clear - the military is hungry for more money. When will they be enough? It’s truly said that there is never much money. Or maybe another .. Each empire has a moment when it’s pay, don’t pay, and not feed the horse .. maybe right now? Yes, no-her, just the greed of those snickering. and they take on a lot of things ..
  7. gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 20 August 2019 11: 46
    +1
    "in the beginning there was a word" and it sounded, the China-America conflict is inevitable like a sunrise. There is nowhere for the world economy to develop in its current form, the markets vacated after the collapse of the USSR have been consumed, and the population's credit is higher than the roof. Stimulate demand, write off debts and shovel the structure of the world economy can war.
  8. Valery Valery
    Valery Valery 20 August 2019 11: 49
    +3
    Is not a fact!!
    The Chinese are also not supermen (not in essence, not in spirit).
    And if you look into history - the great Chinese armies defeated other Chinese armies, and China always lost to strong external enemies. And if someone won, it was only with our help.
    1. kanskebron
      kanskebron 21 August 2019 07: 34
      -2
      and China has always lost to strong external enemies.

      I don’t want to especially discuss this topic with you. Just watch the lectures by Klim Zhukov (with the Goblin) about China. There he lucidly explains how external enemies have suffered from China.
  9. maden.usmanow
    maden.usmanow 20 August 2019 12: 04
    -1
    It is strange that experts did not take into account the combat experience of the United States in that region.

    2 MB with Japan, Korea, Vietnam.
    And all these are very large conflicts. And supply, and logistics, and the transfer of an armada of aircraft, soldiers, ships, etc.
    Repair and maintenance in the same areas.

    China has no such experience.
    It’s impossible to cover missiles with all targets, even for political reasons.
    It’s just to incite the whole region and get a sea blockade.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 20 August 2019 12: 28
      +2
      China has no such experience.
      It’s impossible to cover missiles with all targets, even for political reasons.

      but China doesn’t need everyone. He has strategic control plans for Southeast Asia. Having created a total military advantage, he will be able to dominate any possible enemy in the region and at the same time make the United States think about the need to intervene in the problems of the allies (for example, Taiwan).
  10. rocket757
    rocket757 20 August 2019 12: 07
    0
    You’ll chase two, three ... hares, and not even anyhow, but on an expensive landau !!! The result is predictable.
  11. yehat
    yehat 20 August 2019 12: 13
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    China has it all and in large quantities.

    oh? China really has a lot, but it still stands on a very shaky footing.
  12. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 20 August 2019 12: 16
    -1
    So the Yankees themselves will not fight. The Japanese are bent, Korea, etc., they say, figure it out yourself, they are your neighbors, and I'll smoke outside the door))
  13. Piramidon
    Piramidon 20 August 2019 12: 20
    +2
    Experts predicted

    Now, every gopher is an agronomist, every blogger is an expert.
  14. Prahlad
    Prahlad 20 August 2019 12: 26
    -8
    Honestly, China does not know how to fight, and their notorious number is a weak argument. What Japan has proven. My personal opinion is that China is the worst enemy for us than the United States. In the Far East, there is a so-called "Tor" google what it is ... Just the sale of our lands to China. There can be no union between the Russian Federation and China, it is not our friend at all. Look at their cards, everything will become clear. The most acceptable result is the collapse of China. It will be good for Russia.
    1. Forest
      Forest 20 August 2019 13: 10
      +3
      Liberal lies)
      1. Prahlad
        Prahlad 20 August 2019 14: 43
        -4
        How do you feel about the concentration camps in China, for example, Kazakhs are kept there. Which are stolen directly from the territory of Kazakhstan. here is the video https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1 % 80% D1% 8F +% D0% B2 +% D0% BA% D0% B8% D1% 82% D0% B0% D0% B5
        such is our "friend" with an animal grin!
        1. Forest
          Forest 21 August 2019 11: 50
          0
          Terrorists planted, what a grief for the liveries)
    2. kanskebron
      kanskebron 21 August 2019 07: 40
      -1
      China is not particularly able to fight,

      Stupidity.
      My personal opinion: China is for us the most terrible enemy than the United States.

      Partly true for the Far East.
      The most acceptable result is the collapse of China. For Russia it will be good.

      No doubt, but disintegrating the PRC is now much more difficult than destroying the power of the Fed owners.
  15. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 20 August 2019 12: 28
    +1
    This is basically a crisis born the mismatch between Washington’s strategic objectives and available funds

    This is called - "I walked widely and tore my trousers". In fact, the crisis there is not in the weakness of the US Navy, but in the absence of an aggressive proxy to create tension. There is no one for the Americans to carry the "banner of democracy", and the general concept does not allow themselves to get involved in a global open conflict.
  16. Klingon
    Klingon 20 August 2019 12: 57
    0
    Well, how did they want? you can’t sit in all the chairs at once wassat
  17. Last centurion
    Last centurion 20 August 2019 13: 00
    0
    Of course, the Chinese are stupid more. if every Chinese man over 12 years old is given a submachine gun ... then any attack by the coolest marine corps will be drowned. and without an infantry attack, not a single territory has yet been captured. there can be no victory in superpower wars. only damage (up to total damage) is possible. even the Vietnamese on the basis of the states ass kicked ... and even China will simply bury their army.
  18. Old Horseradish
    Old Horseradish 20 August 2019 13: 06
    -3
    Another nonsense about the military confrontation between the United States and China. The expansion of China is aimed primarily at Russia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Far East, and with luck, the Urals will continue. Attempts to present the USA and China as military rivals and participants in a future war are a distraction from China’s threat to Russia first of all. Daman is not enough?
    1. Chaldon48
      Chaldon48 20 August 2019 14: 20
      0
      Just need to ask a question, which is currently more profitable for China.
    2. Marconi41
      Marconi41 20 August 2019 17: 22
      -1
      Quote: Old Fuck
      The expansion of China is aimed primarily at Russia, Kazakhstan,

      They would deal with Taiwan. But Siberia and Russia are one and the same, aren't they?
  19. Forest
    Forest 20 August 2019 13: 09
    0
    Yes, no, they will win, let them start)
  20. Cry
    Cry 20 August 2019 13: 22
    0
    Kangaroo raised their hands up and row to the penguins.
  21. Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 20 August 2019 14: 17
    -2
    Where do these "experts" come from and how much the State Department unfastens them for frightening "expertise"
  22. NF68
    NF68 20 August 2019 15: 50
    0
    A theory without practice is dead. Only, well, her practice like that to hell. It’s not enough for everyone.
  23. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 20 August 2019 18: 17
    0
    Australian experts began to claim the laurels of British scientists?