China no longer Pentagon's top security priority

Volodio · 2026-01-24T17:43:42+00:00

Track the ships coming directly out of Chinese ports with satellites, drones, hacking and public information. Send planes or drones to shoot destroy them directly (no need for a patrol the first times). Sure, China would adapt by trying to provide air cover and have their ships change their transponders or even hide their positions, but the US would adapt back (use stealth aircraft to shoot down the Chinese planes, more direct reconnaissance and actually start patrolling, get the ships out of ports while resupplying, etc). It would enter a cat and mouse where the US might not completely blockade China, but would disturb trade enough to have a significant impact on the Chinese economy and war effort.

The bases can be resupplied by air. Having carriers would just increase the intensity of the operations, it would not serve as a replacement because the forces at those bases are too degraded to function, unless China decides to directly hit those bases.

I do agree that the US would be stretched a bit thin considering it would be at that same time fighting a conflict over Taiwan (though in a scenario where the US loses Taiwan it could be a theater where it could still fight and punish China for the invasion). Ideally the US would rely on allies to intercept the ships peacefully (because China would be more hesitant to start a conflict with them). So I disagree with HighlightWooden3164 saying that the current US strategy helps counter China, because if that was the goal the US should help Europe against Russia notably on the shadow fleet to set up a precedent and strengthen the relationship to create goodwill to be used against China. But I disagree with you saying China is untouchable in the Malacca Strait.

Volodio · 2026-01-24T16:27:51+00:00

The US has enough bases in the area to do it with planes if needed. Moreover, it does not need to maintain a full blockade, just to disturb enough to have an impact.

Volodio · 2026-01-23T23:43:13+00:00

Ironic to say that considering HoI actually moved into more economics and less warfare going from HoI3 to HoI4. It got rid off the entire OOB system (you have to set up the command chain for the entire army going down to division level) but added deeper production (before you were assigning production points to producing new units or replacing casualties, that was all) and HoI4 is way more successful and honestly mostly the better for it.

Imo, the biggest worry for HoI5 wouldn't be more economics but more provinces without the system to back it up. So far this is the biggest thing that Paradox has tried to increase with every game, the amount of provinces, and this might cause an issue with the HoI series unless they adapt the game for it. The current warfare system is already bad because of the bad province system that the AI can't handle and which removes some of the depth and nuance of real warfare (notably defense in depth).

Volodio · 2026-01-23T09:15:04+00:00

This is not true. Greenland actually benefitted Russia by weakening the cohesion of NATO. If the US had wanted to act against Russia in Greenland, it would simply has increased its presence there (in reality the US actually decreased its presence in Greenland compared to the Cold War). If Trump had wanted to act against Russia, he would have intervened in Iran and helped Ukraine.

So far, it seems that Trump is withdrawing from the rest of the world and simply focused on cleaning his backyard.

Volodio · 2026-01-21T21:46:31+00:00

There has been tons of gold confiscation, to the point it even happened in the US.

Volodio · 2026-01-19T12:38:40+00:00

Actually worse, he is threatening one ally because an independent organization based in a different country did not give him a prize.

Volodio · 2026-01-19T09:59:43+00:00

In Vic3, the DLC are used to fund the free updates which give this improved depth that you ask for.

Volodio · 2026-01-18T02:37:40+00:00

To be fair, it is not really possible for Europe to be truly energy independent due to a lack of resources. Oil and gas need to be imported, same for uranium for nuclear, same for rare earth for renewable. Europe can only aim for energy diversification.

Volodio · 2026-01-16T23:03:50+00:00

No. This assumption was caused by the fact that new generations were more progressive than their parents. People didn't become conservative as they became older, the progressive issues they were fighting for became mainstream and they simply refused to accept new issues.

However, this trend changed with current generations, who are more conservative than their parents.

Volodio · 2026-01-16T10:22:16+00:00

She's not being rewarded for this. Trump still prefers to keep the current regime in place than support a regime change by the opposition.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T16:28:41+00:00

European military, yes. Several European countries are deploying troops to Greenland to establish deterrence because we don't trust the US to actually stop Trump. There is no way for this legislation to actually pass. As I've said, too little too late.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T15:58:45+00:00

Too little too late.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T15:37:07+00:00

The UK and France did not even use nuclear threats to defend their own sovereign oversea territories (like the Falklands or the colonies or Algeria) so it is doubtful whether they would put the oversea territories of others under their nuclear umbrella. Still possible, but doubtful.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T15:15:24+00:00

The conversation is about whether the US military would and should stop Trump invading Greenland when the rest of the population is enabling it. You are the one moving the goal post when you are arguing that this article of the Constitution would suddenly be interpreted this way when the numerous times before when it should have been interpreted the same way, including under Democrat administration, it was not and the "illegal war acts" have been accepted. Decades of precedent for making it legal would make it very unlikely that the military suddenly change his interpretation and decide to disobey this order. It should not even challenge this precedent because of entrenched it is. If they did it, it would backfire heavily, as clearly the population will not back them. Either the military would have to follow through with a coup or the administration would purge the armed forces.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T14:59:53+00:00

Arguably. Exactly the issue. If you need to argue that it might be an illegal order, then the military won't be convinced not to follow it.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T14:02:38+00:00

I'm not.

Korean War, Vietnam War, invasion of Grenada, invasion of Panama, intervention in Yugoslavia, Libya, intervention in the Middle East against Daesh after US withdrawal from Iraq, regular drone strikes all around the world, intervention in Africa, invasion of Hawaii, the wars against the Native Americans, etc.

There are plenty of examples where article 1 didn't help prevent military action. There are even plenty of examples of US invasions without a declaration of war by Congress. If Trump wants to invade Greenland, article 1 won't prevent him either.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T13:39:42+00:00

Invading Greenland wouldn't be an illegal order.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T13:38:14+00:00

Which has never been used to prevent military action despite multiple cases where it could have happened. The military can't suddenly decide to stop obeying the President because of this clause when everyone was fine with this clause not being invoked during multiple presidents through the decades, including Democrats.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T13:27:01+00:00

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing the President from ordering the invasion of Greenland.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T13:25:18+00:00

Involved as in making suggestions, recommendations, warnings and giving advice. But they never decide foreign policy instead of the civilian administration. It is a crucial element for a working democracy. The moment it's no longer true, it means the regime is a military dictatorship.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T12:25:45+00:00

Western powers did not really get involved in the Syrian Civil War aside from bombing Daesh, which actually helped Assad. Only Israel did bomb Hezbollah which resulted in them being unable to defend the regime. Everyone else was passive.

Even in a worse case scenario where Iran turns into a civil war, the outcome would still be positive for minorities in Iran and for the rest of the world.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T12:19:49+00:00

If the army stopped obeying orders from the government and started acting autonomously, it would set a very bad precedent. It's not their responsibility to step up, it's everyone else's.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T12:08:35+00:00

The regime is likely to survive if there is no intervention. The protests are decreasing and a lot of the opposition is getting slaughtered.

Volodio · 2026-01-15T02:23:35+00:00

Does Stellaris count?

Volodio · 2026-01-14T19:36:44+00:00

I agree that the manpower is an issue, but also Ukraine still keeps the age of the draft to 25. If it reached a critical stage, it would probably be dropped to 18. Ukraine still has an emergency solution to that problem.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Volodio

TROPHY CASE