flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Hell yes! **** China!

The biggest loser will actually be China. They have been exposed as a pathetic military partner (gear just a series of failure after failure), as well as a regime protector both diplomatically, and in terms of their fascist tools (just fired/arrested 300 at their state CCTV outfit). Finally, from a trade perspective they were net very reliant on cheap oil from (a) Russia and (b) Iran, and (c) Venezuela. Those sources are going to be iffy at best for them looking ahead. (Though I admit there are solid arguments that Europe is the biggest net loser, as some have stated for a while.)

The biggest winners will be the Iranian people if regime change is facilitated/they take charge after the bombs stop, and the US/Israel otherwise, as we become unshackled by the Iranian threat, and also our pointless foreign entanglement in Europe.

I am amazed anyone could perceive China as a big winner, but I don't read spin/talking points from certain outfits any longer.

Your notion of China winning seems quite interesting in particular given their newfound reliance on large scale purchases of US LNG, among other things:

China imports US oil for Asian fuel markets amid Hormuz crisis @asiatimesonline https://t.co/YWV9OhgzVQ

China is moving to resume large-scale purchases of United States liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil, as supply disruptions in the Middle East and tightening fuel…

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) April 6, 2026

China is undoubtedly the biggest loser. Maduro and the Mullahs both chose China as a strategic partner over the U.S. and we see how that turned out. China is heavily dependent on oil imports and they chose those two nations as key suppliers. How'd that work out? China is now importing American oil again.

What the world has learned in 2026 is that the U.S. centric world order is the only viable option. China cannot supplant the U.S. as the dominant power and if you get cross with the U.S. there's literally nothing the Chinese can do to help you.

What China has learned is that they need us significantly more than we need them. This is a massive loss for China.

Israel is the big winner. Set back their nemisis for years. Regime change is unlikely but if it did happen. That would be huge for Israel.

Pretty much all the middle eastern states but maybe Iraq come out ahead with an Iran unable to hold their oilfield output hostage on a whim, and less able to strategically threaten them. Israel benefits by having far less support for Islamic terrorism in its borders. The uSA benefits by lot having a lunatic terror state that most hates us ideologically. Asia and Europe benefit by having more reliable access to middle eastern oil.

China and Russia have a defanged and less capable client and partner state in the strategic area of the Middle East. Islamist terrorists lose out on their major military and financial backers. China has another Achilles Heel exposed.

Yeah erbody lining up to get them some of that awesome Chinese air defense tech.

NATO is coming apart because there's no use for it. Russia is not a threat to anyone in Western Europe. In fact I predict that in a few years when Putin is gone we will be courting Russia hard. It just makes sense. Russia has huge reserves of stuff we need and we can't let China and Russia get cozy. China is our adversary and no one is even a close second. We need to pivot our influence from Europe to Mexico, central and South America and the Pacific. It's already started in fact.

I think Saudi Arabia and Iraq are quietly the secret winners here. Iran has been a problem for them for a long, long, time.

nortex97 said:

---

The biggest loser will actually be China. They have been exposed as a pathetic military partner (gear just a series of failure after failure), as well as a regime protector both diplomatically, and in terms of their fascist tools (just fired/arrested 300 at their state CCTV outfit). Finally, from a trade perspective they were net very reliant on cheap oil from (a) Russia and (b) Iran, and (c) Venezuela. Those sources are going to be iffy at best for them looking ahead. (Though I admit there are solid arguments that Europe is the biggest net loser, as some have stated for a while.)

The biggest winners will be the Iranian people if regime change is facilitated/they take charge after the bombs stop, and the US/Israel otherwise, as we become unshackled by the Iranian threat, and also our pointless foreign entanglement in Europe.

I am amazed anyone could perceive China as a big winner, but I don't read spin/talking points from certain outfits any longer.

---

People greatly underestimate how complicated geopolitics are and that it requires knowledge and interest in knowledge across history, nations, capabilities, formal alliances, informal alliances. As you demonstrate, lots of varying sources and types of information.

Those who think China wins have succumbed to certain podcast pros or groups thereof and/or their social feeds have developed a bias for China and against the United States. Thanks for posting.

Burdizzo said:

---

I think Saudi Arabia and Iraq are quietly the secret winners here. Iran has been a problem for them for a long, long, time.

---

47 years by my count.

But I agree with you on this. Iran had the ability to interrupt prosperity and sense of security in Israel, Saudi Arabia and really the whole region. The vast majority not interested in thousand year old holy wars and eliminating the others from existing.

If you really want to take the holistic view, the entirety of the civilized world will be the winner. Iran was an evil terroristic state with increasing capabilities to agitate or worse bring about a truly global conflict.

When people look back, this will be a major point in a huge geopolitical turn (back to what many of us would consider to be good times).

Decay said:

---

Is there maybe one specific country that seems to get exactly what it wants every time the US does anything

---

Saudi Arabia
Qatar
Oman

China is winning so much from this conflict that they are working with Pakistan to find a way to get it to stop.

Below from George Friedman at GPF:

Quote:

---

Normally, the Chinese would be pleased to see the U.S. bogged down in a war like the one in Iran. They would use it as an opportunity to condemn the United States while seeking increased influence in nations in the region and elsewhere, including the countries involved in these negotiations as intermediaries. This may still be the case, but there are also two reasons China would want to participate in a negotiating process that has every possibility of failing.

First, China is heavily dependent on imported oil and natural gas, and Iran is an important source of its oil. Of course, Iran makes a great deal of money selling energy to China, so in this sense, they both need the war to end.

Second, Beijing needs a new relationship with Washington. China has faced a significant economic problem ever since the U.S. imposed major tariffs on its goods. This is what the summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will be about. In both cases, China needs the U.S. to cooperate, and so Beijing does not want to appear too pro-Iran. The role of neutral peacemaker is useful.

---

Also note that Friedman was VERY much against tariffs. Turns out he and many here on f16 were wrong about tariffs and who it impacts. Lots of crow to be served over the remaining months of 2026. I will see what I can do to vary up the recipes.

Chinese Pwece Pwan w/ Pakis

PR No.85/2026

Five-Point Initiative of China and Pakistan for Restoring Peace and Stability in the Gulf and Middle East Region (Beijing, March 31,2026) pic.twitter.com/JAkSsro17a

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) March 31, 2026

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Yeah erbody lining up to get them some of that awesome Chinese air defense tech.

NATO is coming apart because there's no use for it. Russia is not a threat to anyone in Western Europe. In fact I predict that in a few years when Putin is gone we will be courting Russia hard. It just makes sense. Russia has huge reserves of stuff we need and we can't let China and Russia get cozy. China is our adversary and no one is even a close second. We need to pivot our influence from Europe to Mexico, central and South America and the Pacific. It's already started in fact.

---

Boy, I hope so. Arguably the greatest strategic blunder made once the USSR fell. We have enough in common with the Russians that it would behoove both countries if we can be allies assuming we can push past the last 85 years of history.

LOYAL AG said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

That's simply false. Doesn't even stand up to a cursory analysis of how China might invade Taiwan. What are the mechanics of China invading Taiwan? Land, air or sea? Can't be land, obviously so air or sea. Ok, which of those can we no longer fight off as a result of this action? There's been no dogfighting in this war so our supply of air to air missiles is fine and I'm confident we didn't make a dent in our ability to sink troop transport ships.

---

My dude…we just have 425 JASSM-ER left, we've blown thru THAAD and PAC-3…

We do not have the munitions we need and China knows it…last time I checked the Chinese are still good at math.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-02/us-israel-gulf-states-burn-through-weapons-supplies-iran-war/106489382

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/04/01/is-the-us-running-out-of-tomahawk-missiles-heres-what-the-experts-say/

Over_ed said:

---

This could change, but based on where we look to be heading, my money is on China.

Iran

• As the US destroys more infrastructure, Iranian need exponentially increases and they will have few other places to turn.
• Iran also will need modernized weapon systems after the shellacking they took in this war.

China desperately wants oil supply not subject to interdiction at sea.

• From Iran, an overland pipeline is possible through Pakistan and then into China.

• Iran would also become the key platform connecting Chinese military and economic power through the middle east and into Europe.
• Of course, China also gains a huge seat at the table in the middle east.

Iran already has a 25-year agreement (2021) that offers China a deep discount for oil in exchange for modernizing infrastructure. Obviously, the cards will all be in China's favor in any new/expanded deal. Expect to see China owning a hefty percentage of Iranian oil fields/production.

Regionally:
Europe loses as China gains, because they refuse to help the US. (good)
Other Arab states lose, no one comes out ahead if China (or its proxy) becomes your next door neighbor.

---

The entire military action against Maduro in Venezuela and now against Iran is a proxy war against China.

Trump is of the belief that by making these 2 countries oil reserves out of their hands and putting them into more risk that China will come to the bargaining table and start dealing with Trump soon to make some important agreements on trade, Taiwan, AI, etc.

Its a huge gamble. So China may end up being the big winner but it isn't Trump's objecdtive....its the opposite.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

Talking heads have said for years China is going to make a move on Taiwan. Hasn't happened yet. Wake me up when China sends their navy over.

---

Sir,

You just described deterrence.

Well done.

---

China wont make a move againts Taiwan, because they can not financially afford it. China moves on Taiwan, US stops all imports of Chinese ships, Chinees economy takes a faster dump than our economy. China is forced to withdraw from Taiwan without a shot being fired. Why do you think China never made a move when Biden was in office. Even poopy pants would have sanctioned the sh*t out of China.

Best China can do is hack our infrastructure and have spies sleep with democratic politicians.

---

It's not wether you think China can afford it, it's whether they think they can.

Xi has publicly said he wants his military ready to be able to take Taiwan by next year…now for the first time…the US doesn't have the munitions to intervene.

So the only other option left, as FTC advocates for, is nuclear.

---

They would have to fight that war with zero outside energy. The US has taken away 2/3rds of the oil/gas they use to control. RUssia is all they got now and we can stop that too very quickly.

The worry about China and Taiwan is 5 years away. Not now. And Trump is working to blunt that risk as we speak with this proxy war.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Unfortunately, that does not align with the facts. This war is the opposite of what a majority of American voters voted for in November 2024. The outcome for Iran and the entire ME region could go several different directions. Some of the potential outcomes are good. Most are bad. But regardless whether we think it was a wise decision to start a war with Iran four weeks ago, the fact is we're in it now, and there is no going back. The problem ahead of us is: the U.S. doesn't control the outcome. The Iranians do. And to a lesser degree, China.

Trump took the second-biggest biggest gamble of his political career by starting a war with Iran. If his gambit succeeds, who benefits the most? In order of magnitude:

1. Israel
2. The Saudis and other oil-rich Arab nations.
3. Trump, hisfamily, and their businesses.
4. China.
5. The EU and UK.
6. Russia and Putin.
7. The USA and the American people.

Quote:

---

I think Saudi Arabia and Iraq are quietly the secret winners here. Iran has been a problem for them for a long, long, time.

---

Saudi maybe but Iran and Iraq have transitioned to close allies and strategic partners, which is really not all that surprising in that Iraq is 70% Shia Muslim and Najaf is considered the birthplace of that sect of the religion.

The cultural and religious ties between the two countries go way, way back and even Saddam and the Baath parties troubled and relatively short minority rule could not change that.

The mutual defense against ISIS really brought the two countries back together.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Only because the MIC is global and isn't a country. If it were, though...

DeschutesAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Unfortunately, that does not align with the facts. This war is the opposite of what a majority of American voters voted for in November 2024. The outcome for Iran and the entire ME region could go several different directions. Some of the potential outcomes are good. Most are bad. But regardless whether we think it was a wise decision to start a war with Iran four weeks ago, the fact is we're in it now, and there is no going back. The problem ahead of us is: the U.S. doesn't control the outcome. The Iranians do. And to a lesser degree, China.

Trump took the second-biggest biggest gamble of his political career by starting a war with Iran. If his gambit succeeds, who benefits the most? In order of magnitude:

1. Israel
2. The Saudis and other oil-rich Arab nations.
3. Trump, hisfamily, and their businesses.
4. China.
5. The EU and UK.
6. Russia and Putin.
7. The USA and the American people.

---

I must say, in terms of magnitude, excluding Trump (I'm sure he's not the only politician benefiting from this), you make a solid point.

An oil pipeline from Iran to China is not remotely feasible.

Deterrence against Russia and China vs. major allies is based on nuclear weapons, not conventional. The Russians and the Chinese know this too.

The biggest winners are African OPEC oil exporters, Venezuela, and Indonesia.

WestAustinAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

Talking heads have said for years China is going to make a move on Taiwan. Hasn't happened yet. Wake me up when China sends their navy over.

---

Sir,

You just described deterrence.

Well done.

---

China wont make a move againts Taiwan, because they can not financially afford it. China moves on Taiwan, US stops all imports of Chinese ships, Chinees economy takes a faster dump than our economy. China is forced to withdraw from Taiwan without a shot being fired. Why do you think China never made a move when Biden was in office. Even poopy pants would have sanctioned the sh*t out of China.

Best China can do is hack our infrastructure and have spies sleep with democratic politicians.

---

It's not wether you think China can afford it, it's whether they think they can.

Xi has publicly said he wants his military ready to be able to take Taiwan by next year…now for the first time…the US doesn't have the munitions to intervene.

So the only other option left, as FTC advocates for, is nuclear.

---

They would have to fight that war with zero outside energy. The US has taken away 2/3rds of the oil/gas they use to control. RUssia is all they got now and we can stop that too very quickly.

The worry about China and Taiwan is 5 years away. Not now. And Trump is working to blunt that risk as we speak with this proxy war.

---

That "five years away" assumption is exactly what people have been warning against for a while.

The timeline you're dismissing is what's commonly called the "Davidson window." In 2021, Philip Davidson testified that China could attempt to move on Taiwan "in the next six years." That wasn't a throwaway lineit's been one of the most cited planning anchors across DoD and Congress. Do the math: that puts the risk window right around 2027, not some distant mid-2030s problem.

And that view hasn't gone away. Senior leaders have continued to warn that China is building toward that capability on a near-term timeline. Mike Minihan, for example, told his force to be prepared for potential conflict as early as 2025-2027. You can debate tone, but the direction of travel is consistent.

That's why the "we've got time" argument doesn't hold up when you look at munitions.

The industrial base for the kinds of weapons we're talking aboutlong-range strike, interceptors, precision-guided munitionsruns on multi-year production timelines. You don't surge Tomahawks, JASSMs, or Patriot interceptors in 12-18 months. If you draw those inventories down now, you're not refilling them before that 2027 window.

So the real question isn't "are we fighting China tomorrow?" It's whether decisions we're making right now leave us short inside the most likely window for a Taiwan contingency.

As for the idea that this conflict is "blunting" China riskmaybe marginally, but that assumes two things that are far from certain:
1. That China is actually deterred by this specific fight, and
2. That we can replenish critical munitions faster than we're consuming them

Neither assumption is clearly supported by current production realities.

Bottom line: this isn't a sequencing problem where we finish one war and then get ready for the next. The risk window is already open, and what we burn today is what we don't have if that window closes faster than expected.

MaxPower said:

---

Uhhh., how long would that pipeline have to be to get somewhere it could be used? 3,000 miles with a lot going through the Himalayas and Gobi desert?

---

Technically challenging, but doable.

Iran would be paying for it via discounted oil, so I think it works financially.

Politically, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline has been stalled for years because of threats of US sanctions. With China on both sides of Pakistan (via presence in Iran) and Indian- Paki animosity I think it is very possible. Pakistan already wants the pipeline.

X-factor. China really wants a land route for oil. China sees this as a national security imperative (I believe). We are not yet seeing electric destroyers, tanks, or fighters. :-)

So yeah, assuming that Iran becomes a client state of China, I think it is at least 50:50.

DeschutesAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Unfortunately, that does not align with the facts. This war is the opposite of what a majority of American voters voted for in November 2024. The outcome for Iran and the entire ME region could go several different directions. Some of the potential outcomes are good. Most are bad. But regardless whether we think it was a wise decision to start a war with Iran four weeks ago, the fact is we're in it now, and there is no going back. The problem ahead of us is: the U.S. doesn't control the outcome. The Iranians do. And to a lesser degree, China.

Trump took the second-biggest biggest gamble of his political career by starting a war with Iran. If his gambit succeeds, who benefits the most? In order of magnitude:

1. Israel
2. The Saudis and other oil-rich Arab nations.
3. Trump, hisfamily, and their businesses.
4. China.
5. The EU and UK.
6. Russia and Putin.
7. The USA and the American people.

---

There is a lot of TDS here and seems very superficial.
If his gambit succeeds, it's means there is a new regime in Iran that is, at least, sympathetic to the US

The biggest beneficiary then would be
1. Iran and Israel. - a solid, educated, ancient culture that has been *******ized by the Islamists is no more
2. The USA - because a friendly ME , and a friendly Iran along with a Venezuela controlled by the US, means that every significant source of oil (outside Russia) is controlled by the US. This is horrific news for China. Make no mistake, they would rather deal with the ME than with Russia
3. The rest of the middle east...Iran is no longer the gangster of the Muslim world, and leads to a temoporary truce between the Sunnis and Shias. This helps countries like Bahrain which have a sizeable Shia population.
4. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan...they border Iran and benefit immensely from cheap Iranian oil - they are currently unable to purchase oil from iran because of the threat of US sanctions.
5. Russia - because China is now wholly dependent on them - and that's a big economy to have at your mercy and because the US likely leaves NATO.

This is the worst case scenario for
1. Democrats - because anything that is good for America is usually bad for Demcorats.
2. China
3. The EU and UK - US says goodbye to NATO and that is a massive gravy train lost for the socialists scumbags there
3. Poland without NATO they are in trouble, they will need direct guarantees from the US

Over_ed said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

Uhhh., how long would that pipeline have to be to get somewhere it could be used? 3,000 miles with a lot going through the Himalayas and Gobi desert?

---

Technically challenging, but doable.

Iran would be paying for it via discounted oil, so I think it works financially.

Politically, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline has been stalled for years because of threats of US sanctions. With China on both sides of Pakistan (via presence in Iran) and Indian- Paki animosity I think it is very possible. Pakistan already wants the pipeline.

X-factor. China really wants a land route for oil. China sees this as a national security imperative (I believe). We are not yet seeing electric destroyers, tanks, or fighters. :-)

So yeah, assuming that Iran becomes a client state of China, I think it is at least 50:50.

---

There is a highway between Pakistan and China (Karakoram highway).
So iran-->Pakistan-->China pipeline is certainly plausible.

It will be expensive, and fraught with risk and geo political uncertainty, so likely not worthy of an investment anytime soon.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Sorry, I'm just not hearing the Freebird on this one.

deddog said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

The answer is The United States of America. End of thread.

---

Unfortunately, that does not align with the facts. This war is the opposite of what a majority of American voters voted for in November 2024. The outcome for Iran and the entire ME region could go several different directions. Some of the potential outcomes are good. Most are bad. But regardless whether we think it was a wise decision to start a war with Iran four weeks ago, the fact is we're in it now, and there is no going back. The problem ahead of us is: the U.S. doesn't control the outcome. The Iranians do. And to a lesser degree, China.

Trump took the second-biggest biggest gamble of his political career by starting a war with Iran. If his gambit succeeds, who benefits the most? In order of magnitude:

1. Israel
2. The Saudis and other oil-rich Arab nations.
3. Trump, hisfamily, and their businesses.
4. China.
5. The EU and UK.
6. Russia and Putin.
7. The USA and the American people.

---

There is a lot of TDS here and seems very superficial.
If his gambit succeeds, it's means there is a new regime in Iran that is, at least, sympathetic to the US

The biggest beneficiary then would be
1. Iran and Israel. - a solid, educated, ancient culture that has been *******ized by the Islamists is no more
2. The USA - because a friendly ME , and a friendly Iran along with a Venezuela controlled by the US, means that every significant source of oil (outside Russia) is controlled by the US. This is horrific news for China. Make no mistake, they would rather deal with the ME than with Russia
3. The rest of the middle east...Iran is no longer the gangster of the Muslim world, and leads to a temoporary truce between the Sunnis and Shias. This helps countries like Bahrain which have a sizeable Shia population.
4. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan...they border Iran and benefit immensely from cheap Iranian oil - they are currently unable to purchase oil from iran because of the threat of US sanctions.
5. Russia - because China is now wholly dependent on them - and that's a big economy to have at your mercy and because the US likely leaves NATO.

---

Interesting points. Here's a counterview:

-- Unless stupid people gain even bigger control of our country's decisionmaking structure, the USA isn't going to leave NATO. However, stupid people took us into a war and a long occupation of Iraq, so the probability of even stupider people being in key decisionmaking positions is definitely not outside the total realm of possibilities.

-- The USA isn't going to control Iran's oil. We don't control Saudi oil, either. Heck, we don't even control our own multinational oil companies.

-- We don't want to get in a war or a ME showdown with China. That would be very very bad for us. So cutting off China's oil suppliers would be extremely unwise of us.

-- Even without the US, the rest of NATO is at a minimum 2x to 3x stronger militarily and economically than Putin's Russia.

-- India and the Pakis would benefit; excellent point by by you.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

lol, wut? Taiwan alone can likely stop China. Japan has already committed they will be involved and have 11 Super Carriers, we can absolutely project power and project Taiwan. We proved in Iran that we can defeat China's missile defenses and in the case of Taiwan they need to find a way to transport about a million soldiers across 100 miles of open ocean just to get to the shores of Taiwan which is heavily defended and has been preparing since the 40's for that invasion.

The only thing that China would accomplish in trying to invade Taiwan is sending it's Navy and a few hundred thousand troops to the bottom of the sea.

aggie93 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

lol, wut? Taiwan alone can likely stop China. Japan has already committed they will be involved and have 11 Super Carriers, we can absolutely project power and project Taiwan. We proved in Iran that we can defeat China's missile defenses and in the case of Taiwan they need to find a way to transport about a million soldiers across 100 miles of open ocean just to get to the shores of Taiwan which is heavily defended and has been preparing since the 40's for that invasion.

The only thing that China would accomplish in trying to invade Taiwan is sending it's Navy and a few hundred thousand troops to the bottom of the sea.

---

- Every wargame in the last fifteen years has shown TWN capitulating…or at least being starved out in a blockade scenario.


- The carrier is likely obsolete in a WestPac fight because China has built a suite of munitions to target and sink out carriers with ballistic missiles.


- TWN hasn't been great in recent years building a military capable of repelling China…they were making investments in prestige weapons not hedgehog weapons systems.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

Talking heads have said for years China is going to make a move on Taiwan. Hasn't happened yet. Wake me up when China sends their navy over.

---

Sir,

You just described deterrence.

Well done.

---

China wont make a move againts Taiwan, because they can not financially afford it. China moves on Taiwan, US stops all imports of Chinese ships, Chinees economy takes a faster dump than our economy. China is forced to withdraw from Taiwan without a shot being fired. Why do you think China never made a move when Biden was in office. Even poopy pants would have sanctioned the sh*t out of China.

Best China can do is hack our infrastructure and have spies sleep with democratic politicians.

---

It's not wether you think China can afford it, it's whether they think they can.

Xi has publicly said he wants his military ready to be able to take Taiwan by next year…now for the first time…the US doesn't have the munitions to intervene.

So the only other option left, as FTC advocates for, is nuclear.

---

They would have to fight that war with zero outside energy. The US has taken away 2/3rds of the oil/gas they use to control. RUssia is all they got now and we can stop that too very quickly.

The worry about China and Taiwan is 5 years away. Not now. And Trump is working to blunt that risk as we speak with this proxy war.

---

That "five years away" assumption is exactly what people have been warning against for a while.

The timeline you're dismissing is what's commonly called the "Davidson window." In 2021, Philip Davidson testified that China could attempt to move on Taiwan "in the next six years." That wasn't a throwaway lineit's been one of the most cited planning anchors across DoD and Congress. Do the math: that puts the risk window right around 2027, not some distant mid-2030s problem.

And that view hasn't gone away. Senior leaders have continued to warn that China is building toward that capability on a near-term timeline. Mike Minihan, for example, told his force to be prepared for potential conflict as early as 2025-2027. You can debate tone, but the direction of travel is consistent.

That's why the "we've got time" argument doesn't hold up when you look at munitions.

The industrial base for the kinds of weapons we're talking aboutlong-range strike, interceptors, precision-guided munitionsruns on multi-year production timelines. You don't surge Tomahawks, JASSMs, or Patriot interceptors in 12-18 months. If you draw those inventories down now, you're not refilling them before that 2027 window.

So the real question isn't "are we fighting China tomorrow?" It's whether decisions we're making right now leave us short inside the most likely window for a Taiwan contingency.

As for the idea that this conflict is "blunting" China riskmaybe marginally, but that assumes two things that are far from certain:
1. That China is actually deterred by this specific fight, and
2. That we can replenish critical munitions faster than we're consuming them

Neither assumption is clearly supported by current production realities.

Bottom line: this isn't a sequencing problem where we finish one war and then get ready for the next. The risk window is already open, and what we burn today is what we don't have if that window closes faster than expected.

---

A big part of the flaw in your thinking is Taiwan already has its own supplies as does Japan, also this would be a defensive conflict and not offensive. The logistical difficulty in invading Taiwan for China is staggering. I mean right now we have the Carl Vinson and the George Washington in the area and we have 3 other Carrier groups in the Pacific not counting what we have engaged in Iran. Any one of those Carrier groups is capable of destroying the entire Chinese Navy. That doesn't account for where our 68 submarines are. China has to cross the Taiwan Strait, good luck with that.

I hope jobs open up there in Iran and the people banging on our doors to go Iran instead.

aggie93 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

Talking heads have said for years China is going to make a move on Taiwan. Hasn't happened yet. Wake me up when China sends their navy over.

---

Sir,

You just described deterrence.

Well done.

---

China wont make a move againts Taiwan, because they can not financially afford it. China moves on Taiwan, US stops all imports of Chinese ships, Chinees economy takes a faster dump than our economy. China is forced to withdraw from Taiwan without a shot being fired. Why do you think China never made a move when Biden was in office. Even poopy pants would have sanctioned the sh*t out of China.

Best China can do is hack our infrastructure and have spies sleep with democratic politicians.

---

It's not wether you think China can afford it, it's whether they think they can.

Xi has publicly said he wants his military ready to be able to take Taiwan by next year…now for the first time…the US doesn't have the munitions to intervene.

So the only other option left, as FTC advocates for, is nuclear.

---

They would have to fight that war with zero outside energy. The US has taken away 2/3rds of the oil/gas they use to control. RUssia is all they got now and we can stop that too very quickly.

The worry about China and Taiwan is 5 years away. Not now. And Trump is working to blunt that risk as we speak with this proxy war.

---

That "five years away" assumption is exactly what people have been warning against for a while.

The timeline you're dismissing is what's commonly called the "Davidson window." In 2021, Philip Davidson testified that China could attempt to move on Taiwan "in the next six years." That wasn't a throwaway lineit's been one of the most cited planning anchors across DoD and Congress. Do the math: that puts the risk window right around 2027, not some distant mid-2030s problem.

And that view hasn't gone away. Senior leaders have continued to warn that China is building toward that capability on a near-term timeline. Mike Minihan, for example, told his force to be prepared for potential conflict as early as 2025-2027. You can debate tone, but the direction of travel is consistent.

That's why the "we've got time" argument doesn't hold up when you look at munitions.

The industrial base for the kinds of weapons we're talking aboutlong-range strike, interceptors, precision-guided munitionsruns on multi-year production timelines. You don't surge Tomahawks, JASSMs, or Patriot interceptors in 12-18 months. If you draw those inventories down now, you're not refilling them before that 2027 window.

So the real question isn't "are we fighting China tomorrow?" It's whether decisions we're making right now leave us short inside the most likely window for a Taiwan contingency.

As for the idea that this conflict is "blunting" China riskmaybe marginally, but that assumes two things that are far from certain:
1. That China is actually deterred by this specific fight, and
2. That we can replenish critical munitions faster than we're consuming them

Neither assumption is clearly supported by current production realities.

Bottom line: this isn't a sequencing problem where we finish one war and then get ready for the next. The risk window is already open, and what we burn today is what we don't have if that window closes faster than expected.

---

A big part of the flaw in your thinking is Taiwan already has its own supplies as does Japan, also this would be a defensive conflict and not offensive. The logistical difficulty in invading Taiwan for China is staggering. I mean right now we have the Carl Vinson and the George Washington in the area and we have 3 other Carrier groups in the Pacific not counting what we have engaged in Iran. Any one of those Carrier groups is capable of destroying the entire Chinese Navy. That doesn't account for where our 68 submarines are. China has to cross the Taiwan Strait, good luck with that.

---

The flaw in your argument is that you're counting platforms, not usable combat power. China does not have to sink every carrier to blunt U.S. intervention. It has to degrade bases, crater runways, force tankers out of the fight, and push carriers and aircraft farther from the Strait. That is exactly what the PLARF is built to do.

And "68 submarines" is not a serious number for this discussion. The U.S. has 53 fast-attack subs total, not 68 attack boats, and only a subset are Pacific-homeported, underway, and close enough to matter in the opening days. A boat in Guam is relevant immediately. A boat in San Diego is not in the Strait tomorrow.

Same with carriers. A CSG is enormously powerful, but it is not a cheat code against hundreds of Chinese theater missiles, including DF-21D, DF-26, and DF-17-class systems designed to hit fleets, bases, and the support architecture behind them. The real question is not whether a carrier can sink ships. It is whether the joint force can survive the opening missile salvoes and generate enough sorties and fires before China creates a fait accompli.

That is why people worry about magazine depth and readiness now. Not because China's invasion problem is easy, but because stopping it is harder than "good luck crossing the Strait."

Over_ed said:

---

This could change, but based on where we look to be heading, my money is on China.

Iran

• As the US destroys more infrastructure, Iranian need exponentially increases and they will have few other places to turn.
• Iran also will need modernized weapon systems after the shellacking they took in this war.

China desperately wants oil supply not subject to interdiction at sea.

• From Iran, an overland pipeline is possible through Pakistan and then into China.

• Iran would also become the key platform connecting Chinese military and economic power through the middle east and into Europe.
• Of course, China also gains a huge seat at the table in the middle east.

Iran already has a 25-year agreement (2021) that offers China a deep discount for oil in exchange for modernizing infrastructure. Obviously, the cards will all be in China's favor in any new/expanded deal. Expect to see China owning a hefty percentage of Iranian oil fields/production.

Regionally:
Europe loses as China gains, because they refuse to help the US. (good)
Other Arab states lose, no one comes out ahead if China (or its proxy) becomes your next door neighbor.

---

This assume the current regime continues and stays aligned with China.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

This could change, but based on where we look to be heading, my money is on China.

...

Regionally:
Europe loses as China gains, because they refuse to help the US. (good)
Other Arab states lose, no one comes out ahead if China (or its proxy) becomes your next door neighbor.

---

This assume the current regime continues and stays aligned with China.

---

Not exactly. I disagree with the thought that a different "regime" will actually act differently.

They are all Muslim fundamentalists, who believe that if you are not following the teachings of that dude who "married" an 8-year-old girl, you should be enslaved, converted, or killed.

There is no middle ground with these guys, and any that pretend like they are offering a "moderate" agreement are just setting you up for the next attack.

Considering Iran already has substantial agreements with China, I do think China will take likely to come out of this as Iran's leading partner, they each have what the other wants.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

China.

Due to our munitions expenditures we lost conventional deterrence in the WestPac for the next 5 years.

They could make a move on TWN and we couldn't stop them unless we decided to go nuclear.

---

That's simply false. Doesn't even stand up to a cursory analysis of how China might invade Taiwan. What are the mechanics of China invading Taiwan? Land, air or sea? Can't be land, obviously so air or sea. Ok, which of those can we no longer fight off as a result of this action? There's been no dogfighting in this war so our supply of air to air missiles is fine and I'm confident we didn't make a dent in our ability to sink troop transport ships.

---

My dude…we just have 425 JASSM-ER left, we've blown thru THAAD and PAC-3…

We do not have the munitions we need and China knows it…last time I checked the Chinese are still good at math.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-02/us-israel-gulf-states-burn-through-weapons-supplies-iran-war/106489382

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/04/01/is-the-us-running-out-of-tomahawk-missiles-heres-what-the-experts-say/

---

So I asked you to tell me how China is going to attempt to take Taiwan, by air or by sea. You responded with the fact that we're using up a significant supply of air-to-surface missiles. I have no clue what your answer does for the core question of how China attempts to take Taiwan.

Again, by air or by sea? Now how does the current war impact munitions in this hypothetical war with China in defense of Taiwan? If you want to argue we have degraded our ability to destroy bases on the Chinese mainland then make that argument. Right now you've told me we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we won't be fighting. Put another way what does the supply of JASSM-ER have to do with our ability to shoot down troop aircraft or sink boats in the straight?