LOYAL AG said:

---

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?

---

You're asking the wrong question. It is not "does JASSM-ER shoot down troop planes?" It does not. The question is whether the U.S. still has enough long-range strike to break China's invasion architecture before and during the crossing and enough interceptors to survive the missile campaign that would precede it. A Taiwan fight is not a simple sea battle in the Strait. It starts with the PLA Rocket Force hammering bases, air defenses, and support infrastructure. If THAAD and PAC-3 are depleted, the shield is weaker. If JASSM-ER and similar standoff weapons are depleted, the sword is weaker. And China is absolutely capable of doing that arithmetic.

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 we haven't put a dent in to our munitions stockpile

And China is not going to try and take Taiwan. If they did, Taiwan themselves would devastate China's military. China would be in a similar situation as Russia, maybe worse. Big meat grinder. Plus China's economy will collapse

We also could shut down the strait if we wanted, then China would run out of fuel for their invasion

2026NCAggies 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 we haven't put a dent in to our munitions stockpile

And China is not going to try and take Taiwan. If they did, Taiwan themselves would devastate China's military. China would be in a similar situation as Russia, maybe worse. Big meat grinder. Plus China's economy will collapse

We also could shut down the strait if we wanted, then China would run out of fuel for their invasion

---

Start with Tomahawks (TLAM), because that's the clearest case. The U.S. inventory is roughly 4,000 missiles, and reporting plus CSIS/FPRI-based estimates put usage in the hundreds around the ~800 range in this conflict.

That's not trivial.

That's on the order of roughly 20% of total inventory. Now compare that to production: the U.S. only buys about 50-70 Tomahawks per year.

So burning ~800 missiles is effectively a decade or more of procurement. That is, by definition, a dent.

Now look at JASSM and JASSM-ER. The total inventory is roughly ~3,500 missiles based on CSIS estimates, and these are core opening-phase weapons used alongside TLAM in standoff strikes. We don't have a clean public number for exact usage, but Bloomberg states we're down to 425…LEFT.

And this is where your Taiwan argument breaks down. You're framing it like the problem is whether we can sink ships or shoot down planes. That's not how the fight starts.

A Taiwan scenario opens with mass PLA missile strikes from the PLA Rocket Force. The U.S. and its allies then burn through interceptors like THAAD, PAC-3, and SM-6 just to stay in the fight. At the same time, the U.S. needs long-range strike JASSM and TLAM to hit launchers, suppress air defenses, and strike ports and staging areas before or during any crossing.

If you've already burned roughly 20% of TLAM, a most of JASSM, and stressed interceptor inventories, then you've reduced your margin in exactly the phase that matters most. So no we're not "out of ammo" but we're so low it will take years to get back to where we were.

And where we were really sucked for the China fight.

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.

---

Bwahhahaaha. You are simply wrong and not facts support the above. And Lucky 7 is your answer.

Quit simping for the Chinese and you may understand it better.

deddog said:

---

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.

---

Rail would be preferable over pipeline regardless, and much of the rail exists.

People claiming China-Paki-Iran pipeline will be the bees knees could use some quality time with both a topographical map, map of existing structure, and an up to date map of the geopolitics of the area.

infinity ag said:

---

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

---

They may need some mid-level management if you are interested. I know a guy based in the UAE that will be involved in rebuilding distribution networks if interested. Let me know.

Dead serious too. Bet you could pull down $500k to $1mm if you are willing to make a few sacrifices and work hard.

flown-the-coop said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

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

---

They may need some mid-level management if you are interested. I know a guy based in the UAE that will be involved in rebuilding distribution networks if interested. Let me know.

Dead serious too. Bet you could pull down $500k to $1mm if you are willing to make a few sacrifices and work hard.

---

if he does really well, is there a chance they promote him to......C...E....O ...?

Over_ed said:

---

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.

---

A majority of Iranians don't agree with those people

deddog said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

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

---

They may need some mid-level management if you are interested. I know a guy based in the UAE that will be involved in rebuilding distribution networks if interested. Let me know.

Dead serious too. Bet you could pull down $500k to $1mm if you are willing to make a few sacrifices and work hard.

---

if he does really well, is there a chance they promote him to......C...E....O ...?

---

I mean, there is always potential.

I know some mock the dude, but if he spent time with his concerns and thoughts versus lashing out at everyone and everything as if the world has aligned to wrong them, I think they would be capable of resolving their angst against management and people who have been successful.

Don't know the dude well enough to really opine, but I would encourage all to nut up and pursue your dreams and goals versus complaining "the man" is keeping you down.

Victim attitude is never a pathway to success and happiness. Not everyone wins a ghetto lottery.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

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.

---

A majority of Iranians don't agree with those people

---

It's an 80/20 issue, much like many things in this Country. And like Iran, we have state run media and shadow bad actors intent on starting macro conflicts across the world instead of caring about the sovereign responsibility of a country to its citizens.

flown-the-coop said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

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

---

They may need some mid-level management if you are interested. I know a guy based in the UAE that will be involved in rebuilding distribution networks if interested. Let me know.

Dead serious too. Bet you could pull down $500k to $1mm if you are willing to make a few sacrifices and work hard.

---

I made more last year in the US stock market while sitting on my ass.

You have to guarantee me $100M if you want me to risk my life to go into that jihadi hellhole. Even then... maybe.... since life is invaluable.

infinity ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

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

---

They may need some mid-level management if you are interested. I know a guy based in the UAE that will be involved in rebuilding distribution networks if interested. Let me know.

Dead serious too. Bet you could pull down $500k to $1mm if you are willing to make a few sacrifices and work hard.

---

I made more last year in the US stock market while sitting on my ass.

You have to guarantee me $100M if you want me to risk my life to go into that jihadi hellhole. Even then... maybe.... since life is invaluable.

---

Sure. Were you able to get the Mercedes for the Mrs?

For someone who complains about the fat cats getting fatter whilst the plebes toil away, you just bragged you would not take a incredibly high paying job because its too risky and you make more sitting on your arse.

Thank you for being honest and showing your true colors for all to see.

Acceptance is a critical step in recognizing one needs to change.

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.

---

trump said we won, which, for some, is the only fact that matters.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

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."

---

There are 44 million people in Taiwan and a large percentage of them have served in the military as it is a requirement. Let's say that only 5 million are decent fighters. Even 1 million. There are only a few places you can land on Taiwan to invade and most of the island is mountainous with all kinds of defenses built in and supplies as they have planned for every since they escaped there. Your assumption is that somehow, in spite of massive superiority in technology by the US, that we won't be able to make a dent in China's invasion much less Japan or Taiwan itself fighting a defensive war. How does China get what would likely be the equivalent of 5 D Days worth of troops across 100 miles of open ocean without most of them ending up in the bottom of the sea? How doe they successfully land on those beaches when Taiwan and everyone else knows they are coming?

As for "starving them out" you are talking about years to make a realistic dent. Do you see any scenario where China is able to blockade Taiwan for a year while the US and Japan can't do anything about it?

I don't buy the wargames line, the proof of how we overwhelmed Venezuela and Iran using Chinese tech like it was worthless is strong evidence of that. They have very few real ships that can project power, most of their Navy is basically PT boats or ships that are a joke. China is all about showing off far more than they can actually do, that is their culture and especially under Xi. It's like the Ghost cities. They use the military as a jobs program more than a fighting force and they haven't seen any real combat in decades among their soldiers.

It's just a very different situation trying to take a 1st World island that is extremely well armed with a trained military that is prepared for the attack and has at least 2 very significant allies who are committed to helping their defense.

flown-the-coop 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.

---

Bwahhahaaha. You are simply wrong and not facts support the above. And Lucky 7 is your answer.

Quit simping for the Chinese and you may understand it better.

---

MAGA is the correct answer.

Making America Great Agin works just as well.