OSINT Mercury
@osint_mercury
Followers
1,597
Following
224
Media
16
Statuses
1,481
Compiling open source intelligence, providing analysis, making rash predictions about future conflicts.
Joined November 2023
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
#ปิ่นภักดิ์EP8
• 588470 Tweets
TLP HOT WRIST INTERTWINED
• 583230 Tweets
Arsenal
• 222653 Tweets
ارسنال
• 203025 Tweets
#GameofSixTONES
• 156840 Tweets
Lando
• 88942 Tweets
Norris
• 77130 Tweets
Manchester City
• 47730 Tweets
Haaland
• 47340 Tweets
#Number_1
• 46121 Tweets
BBS KAI
• 42224 Tweets
Man City
• 35001 Tweets
SPILL THE FEELS NEW VER 01
• 32063 Tweets
Ricciardo
• 30373 Tweets
McLaren
• 29166 Tweets
Recipe
• 28837 Tweets
ツイステ
• 25976 Tweets
Rodri
• 23602 Tweets
Calafiori
• 22244 Tweets
#MCIARS
• 21253 Tweets
Happy Fall
• 21101 Tweets
Leverkusen
• 16809 Tweets
Fate復刻
• 14145 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
This is a misconception, the F35 program being delayed ~10 years, with tens of billions of cost overruns, is not a success,
Yes, it is a very capable platform, but ROI, manufacturing output, and supply chain mean a lot more than technology
In this case, supply chain logistics
53
85
610
@sentdefender
What kind of capabilities do the Houthis have to conduct undersea sabotage like this?
Assuming its divers (seen here [1]), and much of the Red Sea is < 100m in depth, but how complicated is locating such cables and delivering ordinance
[1]
52
61
255
@sentdefender
Is this not something that was planned for, with multiple contingencies, over the last 3 months while over 150 attacks were carried out on US troops?
Saying nothing about what the response should be, even if it is nothing, the last thing that should be happening is 12-24 hours
5
9
84
When China moves on Taiwan, US leadership will frantically pivot to reprioritize Taiwan over other interests…
And they will find it impossible to provide material support to the island nation at that time
If your leadership is only capable of learning in retrospect, and is
U.S. HOUSE APPROVES:
• Potential TikTok ban
• $60.8 billion for Ukraine
• $26.4 billion for Israel
• $8 billion for Taiwan
It now goes to the Senate
800
2K
8K
6
19
59
Shaping Operations to desensitize Taiwan for the invasion/blockade they know will come
China will condition Taiwan to expect exercises, then one day, Taiwan won't scramble to intercept the nth incursion into their ADIZ, and the invasion will start with them on the back foot
🚨🚨🚨
“The PLA using yearly large scale exercises in the Straits to lull us into thinking the threat of invasion is low, then one year in the near future, that large training force abruptly changes course and heads straight for beaches on Taiwan.” 1/
53
127
434
4
16
59
@sentdefender
Reports and RUMINT like this could obviously be skewed, however if the sentiment from a discussion like this was “a number of allies are prepared” and “others think it should be atleast discussed”, this makes it seem like the avg sentiment is in favor of such a move. That said,
14
8
54
There are already widespread problems with cost overruns, production delays and readiness when it comes to today’s front line assets (e.g. SSNs, F35s)
These problems are even worse for next gen programs (LRHW, Constellation, Columbia, Sentinel)
China does not have these
Constellation Frigate Delivery Delayed 3 Years, Says Navy - USNI News
63
136
575
10
15
51
@Fabius1453
I meant this as a criticism of the F35 project more than the F35 platform. On balance, I take it over any adversarial aircraft. It can be very effective in other theaters. But (for reasons stated) it is relatively ineffective in this theater. And as this theater should have been
5
6
46
@Osinttechnical
Attacks from proxies were to be expected, but the direct Iran -> Israel launches are significant, expect the Israeli response to escalate things further, this wont be the height of the conflict
3
2
42
@Global_Mil_Info
“Heavy and overwhelming strikes” would be uncharacteristic of the US response to >100 attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, which has been superficial and inconsequential.
Maybe this is different, but I’m not sure.
#yemen
#houthis
7
0
36
@sentdefender
Why is it implausible that ~20,000 civilian casualties have accumulated over 4 months of high intensity conflict in a city that is under blockade, in which people are without access to power, food and medical resources (hospitals have been at capacity for months)?
Is there any
5
1
40
@sentdefender
I’m not sure how Russia could directly intervene in a kinetic conflict (should that develop in Transnistria) in any meaningful way.
Landing ships through the Black Sea aren’t feasible, neither are large air operations.
Other than limited stand off strikes, or some sabotage,
11
3
35
It should never be assumed (especially on the eve of conflict) that an adversary is less capable than they appear to be.
Once incompetence is displayed, then you can adjust your priors.
In their initial invasion, Russia proved to have critical logistical vulnerabilities.
Corruption in the PLA? For sure.
Less likely to contemplate military action because of it? HUGE assertion that’s only sourced to some no doubt special pleading anonymous officials. 🙄 3/
8
4
47
5
8
37
@sentdefender
This would be reckless. Some people can’t seem to look one step past such a move. Although this alone wouldn’t initiate article 5, it would risk a serious escalation and set a new precedent - just as NATO (openly advertised) real-time intelligence sharing in Ukraine preceded
8
0
36
@sentdefender
Was this really worth the attack on the consulate,
Surely attacks on the same (or similar) targets when they’re not on diplomatic territory would’ve reduced the magnitude of the expected response
Or was the response the objective
10
2
33
@sentdefender
As much as people want to avoid the nuclear component of great power competition, by assuming NATO countries can get away with greater and greater involvement in the conflict with no increase in nuclear escalation, nuclear weapons are very much a part of any risk calculation that
9
6
32
Many western leaders are being extremely careless, and in a way that could be catastrophic
Yes, Russian nuclear threats are “psychological intimidation”…
But they are not “just” intimidation
> Russia is a nuclear superpower
> They are more motivated (more to lose) than NATO
NATO's No. 2 official says Russian President Vladimir Putin's nuclear threat is currently just "psychological intimidation."
14
38
162
8
10
32
Bigger maybe, but not stronger
The US is spread thin across multiple theaters with a diminishing defense industrial base [1]
The UK is facing severe force structure and capability decline [2]
Russia is outpacing a collective of NATO countries in munition production [3]
[1]
❝NATO is bigger, stronger, and more united than ever❞
— NATO Secretary General
@jensstoltenberg
NATO marks 75th anniversary as foreign ministers meet in Brussels
#1NATO75years
1K
608
4K
3
13
32
@sentdefender
Irrespective of this context, “International Law” (and its various manifestations) is just theater
A formality in peacetime that carries no weight in wartime, when it is meant to intercede
1
4
32
A common mistake to avoid: Many people compare militaries on paper. They see the significant US advantage, and conclude that US victory is assured.
Instead, what matters is:
> how many of your forces you can project into theater
> how long you can sustain your forces
3
9
31
@sentdefender
The longer this goes on, the less likely a direct Iran -> Israel attack becomes
Iran is happy to work through their proxies to sow chaos in the region and draw US/Israel into another unwinnable counter-insurgency conflict, but they don’t want a conventional fight with US/Israel
2
2
30
Unfortunately, war is not a controlled competition where technology is judged on merit
If your adversary can copy your technology (even remotely close in capability), and can out-produce you by many multiples, they’re likely to win (all else equal).
Hey can I copy your homework?
Sure, but change some of it so it's not obvious you copied.
26
48
444
4
7
30
@Mankosmash
The F35 was 10 years and $183 Billion over budget.
F35s would require multiple refuels for a one way trip from Guam to Taiwan that included combat maneuvers, let alone a return trip. KC 135s are not going to be able to operate within 1000 miles or more of Taiwan in the event of
3
2
27
For everyone who will disregard the state of the B 2 fleet because 100 B 21s are just around the corner
There were meant to be 132 B 2s… only 21 were made (now 19)
And now the US is far less capable of mass producing such platforms than in the 1980s - so don’t count many B 21s
The U.S. military is more constrained than many appreciate.
"The action will reduce the B-2 fleet to 19...The Spirit is the Air Force’s only penetrating bomber, meaning it is able to get past a peer adversary’s integrated air defense system."
38
35
150
2
9
28
The way that current political and military leadership is handling this response to Iran is really making me adjust my priors about the initial US response to an Invasion of Taiwan.
One would hope that, because Taiwan is of much more strategic importance than Iraq & Syria, that
3
9
29
The US shouldn’t be lulled into believing China has as much ground to catch up as seen on paper, and that China hasn’t been militarizing for conflict across the straight.
In reality, US military leadership knows this, but it’s not accurately conveyed to the media and the public.
6
7
27
@Global_Mil_Info
If this was the announcement, especially for a technology that is yet to be fully developed and deployed, that has been known about for a decade, then the theatrics around the announcements are irresponsible and likely meant to influence decision making or shaping opinion prior
3
2
27
@johnkonrad
the greater the distance you must project force, the more strain on logistics, and there have been many indications of failing US logistics in peacetime and semi-permissive environments:
> Sub and F35 fleets significantly underperforming readiness goals
> Afghanistan withdrawal
5
2
26
The tonnage for USN is skewed heavily by carriers
The inflection point is not when PLAN = USN tonnage, it’s when PLAN = the Pacific fleet + Japanese Navy
China does not need nearly as many carriers or large surface combatants as the US. The entirety of the first Island chain is
@EmperorXLair
@osint_mercury
China has 820,000 tones of naval warships. The US HAS 3,200,000. We just dont count every canoe as a naval vessel.
By most expert estimations China is 150 years away from catching the US in Naval firepower, you witless buffoon.
1
0
0
1
10
25
@sentdefender
If “Ukraine is on the brink of defeat this year” (as was said to justify this bill), then a single aid package will not reverse the tide of such a war
Instead, all it will do is prolong the current status quo, necessitating future aid, drawing the conflict out, and maximizing
3
1
26
There is much to learn from the efficacy of Israeli and USN air defenses in recent months - and Japan should certainly prioritize AD above almost all else
However nowhere near the same level of success will be achieved against PLARF
Realistic expectations from SDF and PACOM
Japanese officials watched how Israel fended off 99% of Iran's missiles and drones and are simulating how it may apply to the Indo-Pacific.
"We are watching this with keen interest, especially how the ballistic missiles were shot down," one official said.
42
149
396
3
5
26
@RedDirtKid3
@sentdefender
This is different. The Houthis are very indiscriminate in their attacks in the Red Sea (they’ve fired on ships transporting food to Yemen for example). Also, unlike Nordstream, this is not infrastructure that the Houthis invested, built and generate revenue from.
2
0
24
China might instead make the calculation that a move on Taiwan may not cause a full scale conflict that most think.
Since 2022 they have been desensitizing Taiwan to Incursions into their ADIZ (with a many fold increase over previous years).
China has also prioritized its
@osint_mercury
@johnkonrad
The only reason the world is at peace is China is not yet interested in Chaos. Maybe they are not yet economically ready or they just prefer to wait it out. People have talking about these logistics issues weapon shortages for years yet nothing concrete has been done about it
1
0
4
1
7
25
This is likely as advertised - but when China finally moves on Taiwan, it will be preceded by some exercise, or secondary operation, that masks the true intention,
Mimicking what ROC forces have become habituated to after years of ADIZ incursions and exercises like these
BREAKING: PLA just announced they will conduct "Joint Sword-2024A" exercise around Taiwan, deploying army, navy, air force, and rocket force. Exercise details include: joint maritime and air combat patrols, joint seizure of comprehensive battlefield control, (1/2)
32
215
549
2
8
25
It’s incredible how costly strategic inertia can be,
There is no (substantial) strategic benefit that has kept US troops in Iraq and Syria all these years,
This can likely be boiled down to a political calculation to pass the humiliation of withdraw down to a later admin.
What are we waiting for? This isn’t going to get better, and we do not have the forces, the time, or the will to reinvade. It will not be better tomorrow, or the next day, or the next.
It’s time to go.
20
22
146
3
9
23
This gets to the root of the problem; the reason so many in the West hand-wave away
> endless foreign aid
> trillion dollar wars and cost overruns
> an atrophied industrial base
All on the eve of a peer conflict in the Pacific
This reminds me of a poll that
@balajis
ran -
3
4
23
When China is ready to move on Taiwan, a DDG in the straight is not going to disrupt their invasion plans. The survivability of such a FONOP in such a scenario is zero - with a cost of $2 Billion and 300 lives that amount to nothing more than a symbolic sacrifice
There are moves
@osint_mercury
I have to respectfully disagree. These transits are a low cost options, tactical in nature but provide means to mount a challenge to PRC.
5
0
3
2
7
22
Notable exclusions from the official Chinese military budget:
> The Chinese Coast Guard
> R&D
> People’s Armed Police (paramilitary)
> Foreign Weapon Purchases
Also, when adjusting for purchasing power, China gets more per dollar than the US on their military spend
@ElbridgeColby
ahem
China’s Military Spending Is Much Bigger Than We Thought
Revised figures based on US intelligence give an estimate of $700 billion a year instead of the official figure of $300 billion.
0
8
13
2
8
22
This is an indicator that US leadership has some expectation for a Taiwan invasion in 2024.
Given the two optimal windows for an invasion force to cross the Straight are April and October [1], it looks like the former is the concern.
5 aircraft carriers is roughly the average
2
8
21
Among the people who take the problems with US Defense seriously, there is an (understandable) emphasis on just increasing defense spending.
But dumping more money into a broken/misaligned machine doesn’t improve the output.
Money is not an infinite resource, and efficiency
3
2
20
@IndoPac_Info
decentralization/diversification increase survivability - which any industry participants with strategic level importance to nations on the warpath should consider
1
2
18
@Global_Mil_Info
It is becoming *usual.
Conditioning ROK/US forces to tolerate increased missile launches.
It would obviously be much different in kind (no proxies, different theater, etc), but there is a possible future where the new norm of the Korean conflict resembles attacks on US forces
1
1
19
1. If you only allocate resources based on conflicts that are already underway, you are setting yourself up for failure
2. These conflicts are not the same in their strategic importance, geography, p(victory), and so on.
The most important difference between these two
1
7
20
If current trends continue another 5-6 years, I lean toward direct intervention having a worse ev than not getting involved (not recommending this for present day).
I don't think that it would be impossible for the US to win - there will still be a significant p(victory). I just
@osint_mercury
@Mankosmash
@MattVallone
@shetlerjones
Reading that it is very hard to understand why us would intervene at all? What's the payback for a local dispute?
1
0
1
3
5
19
This is how battles are won and wars are lost.
While the US is clearly superior in Individual engagements, with a technological advantage is almost every domain over almost every adversary, this is a recipe for disaster in a protracted, large scale peer conflict.
The ability
On one hand, the US Navy is doing incredible work in Red Sea shooting down Houthi drones and missiles nearly every day.
On the other hand, it can't build a single ship on time and on budget.
Why does this dichotomy exist and how can we solve the bigger problem? My thoughts 👇
40
48
275
2
5
20
I think the following sentiment - “The US spends $900 Billion on defense with nothing to show for” is correct in following sense,
The delta between US spending and China’s spending in the last decade has not generated a significant difference in capability/efficacy
Most of the
The US operates over 60 nuclear submarines (the most powerful submarines on earth) along with over 10 super carriers, a large # of destroyers, smaller carriers, and a massive # of 5th generation fighter jets incl F22s and F35s. And long-range bombers like B21s and B2s (and soon
2
1
14
3
6
19
Everywhere you look, you find the same failures, in the biggest programs
F-35
Sentinel
Columbia
Constellation
Multiple $100B - $1T programs way late and way over cost
How many anecdotes does it take to reveal a trend
Not including programs like Zumwalt, LCS, Bradley
The F-35 upgrades known as Technology Refresh 3 are now a year overdue and have halted deliveries of the newest fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.
8
43
98
7
3
18
Exactly
Even if it were to turn out that the China threat was overinflated:
> that corruption was greater and more crippling than expected
>that their combat inexperience rendered their forces or leadership ineffective
> that their domestic morale and will for conflict was
@osint_mercury
Too many people are still under the impression that we can easily repel PLAN within the first island chain, we can control the sea lanes, we can control the air, we can resupply Taiwan, and it will be a multiyear engagement.
Cope that their rockers are filled with water, bulk
2
0
5
2
5
18
This.
China is not spending on the order of $100 Billion (est) over the next decade to grow their nuclear arsenal to match the US [1] just for the sake of it
Nuclear weapons will be leveraged in China’s aggressive expansion in the Pacific. It is most likely that this leverage
@osint_mercury
China will threaten Japan, the Philippines and Australia with nuclear weapons in the Pacific war. Because this is the most basic way to set the USA and its allies against each other.
China will definitely use this.
0
0
5
2
9
18
I don’t think it’s game over when troops land in Taiwan, as the capability and efficacy of China’s ground forces are unknown, but I would say that the outcome is mostly decided by whether the fight even occurs in the first place
The greatest p(victory) for the US is through
@HoyasFan07
@osint_mercury
@PyajamaPandaBBQ
@ElbridgeColby
No expert here but seems to me if the PLA successfully lands on the beaches of Taiwan, as things stand today, it’s game over. Preparation on the island for a major land war should be made now in order to help deter an invasion in the first place.
0
0
2
13
7
16
@MullisVsMachine
@elonmusk
@DavidSacks
Understanding the realities of war (how they’re fought, how they’re won) is necessary for avoiding them.
Most conflicts (between near peer adversaries) are initiated because of a miscalculation.
Understanding the primacy of economic power in waging war, leads to revelations
2
1
16
@Noahpinion
1. The F 35 platform is amazing, the F-35 program (on net) has been a failure
2. Intercepting cruise missiles, short/medium range ballistic missiles (that aren’t on par with China/Russia), especially when the defender has full knowledge of the attack - is not at all analogous to
3
0
15
While all-out nuclear war is very unlikely, many people underestimate the possibility of limited nuclear use in the Pacific
Primarily against Carrier Strike Groups and remote island bases. The loss of civilian life and disruption to industry (which is the greatest cause of death
Interesting
#survey
. If China and the US enter in an all-out nuclear war (bilaterally), will the US strike other countries out of spite, or to share their doomed fate with America? If so, which countries would the US strike?
3
0
1
3
3
15
I have no evidence, purely speculative, its very possible that either:
1. These groups are acting in a truly suicidal fashion by continually instigating world powers without any real backing/cover
2. That these groups are making a bet on US collapse (militarily/economically),
@osint_mercury
So you think that China is directing Iran? Any evidence of material or financial support provided by China to Iran?
1
0
1
1
7
14
Credentialism has perverted expertise to equate time spent studying a topic with wisdom
True expertise actually requires you to be right more often than you are wrong. Theory must come into contact with reality
This has become most evident in geopolitics and political economics
Maybe all those layers of credentialing aren’t always so correlated with wisdom and common sense.
Foreign policy, unlike advanced math, is ultimately about people. It thus should be related to common wisdom. Human beings are experts at strategy by nature. 1/
10
6
56
1
4
15
PLAN doesn’t have the same kind of expeditionary capability as the US Navy.
But this point that “China doesn’t have a blue water navy”, often presents a US blockade of the Straight of Malacca as a single move that wins the war. It is not.
Given Chinese Oil Reserves, its daily
@osint_mercury
@ThrustWR
What % of the Chinese fleet can get to the Indian ocean to protect their food and energy supply lines?
0
0
0
2
5
15
The objective of studying war is to avoid it.
@elonmusk
’s point in this thread (and previous spaces he’s done with
@DavidSacks
) is to avoid disillusion with regard to the realities of war, in an effort to avoid it all together.
“We’re sleep walking into world war 3”
@MullisVsMachine
@elonmusk
@DavidSacks
Understanding the realities of war (how they’re fought, how they’re won) is necessary for avoiding them.
Most conflicts (between near peer adversaries) are initiated because of a miscalculation.
Understanding the primacy of economic power in waging war, leads to revelations
2
1
16
1
1
14
@Bill_StebbinsJR
Many people allow themselves to be wowed by impressive technical feats of weaponry, and have an overinflated sense of their importance, relative to the most important aspect of war fighting, unsexy logistics and industrial capacity
2
0
16
At a minimum, the submarine component of AUKUS has to be scrapped
Attack submarines represent perhaps the greatest (relevant) technological advantage for the US in the Pacific
Prior to the AUKUS agreement, the US has struggled meeting production goals for its own SSNs [1], and
“Already both the US Navy and congress have signalled real and very reasonable doubts about whether it is wise to do so now. America has no Virginia-class submarines to spare. These submarines are becoming more critical to US naval strategy.” 1/
33
82
276
6
2
15
Yes, but not only that - what changes to structure and process will be made that will enable more $ to have an effect.
The primary constraint has not been a lack of capital, but a massively capital inefficient defense base.
More money does not fix programs like Constellation
Anyone advocating for a major increase in defense spending (e.g. getting to 4.5 or 5.5% GDP) needs to clearly explain the following if they intend to be taken seriously:
Where will the funds come from, specifically? Which non-Def programs will be cut or which
@ElbridgeColby
3
0
4
1
5
15
Other reports that TLAMs were used as well.
It may seem like overkill for OSINT accounts to complain every time standoff weapons are used in the Middle East.
And it’s true a single strike with Tomahawks or JASSMs is of no consequence.
However, the problems is, given the nature
UPDATE: The US has conducted strikes on at least 30 Houthi targets across at least 10 locations in Yemen from air and surface platforms, including F/A-18s, per two US officials - CNN
14
68
270
2
4
14
This.
Munitions and money are not infinite, nor instantly replaceable.
People arguing that spending immense sums of money or resources incurs no cost or trade off are either using, or being mislead by, mental gymnastics meant to justify what they wish to be true.
To those arguing the supplemental really goes to US jobs and is not “sent to Ukraine”:
You’re either disingenuous or ignorant of reality. Appropriations for PDA backfill greenlight DoD sending all those existing arms to Ukraine, then it takes *years* for DoD to get the
8
14
40
1
5
14
That Pelosi visit really was poorly executed. Regardless of where anyone in the US stands on defending Taiwan, the step-function increase in Chinese incursions as a result is undeniable.
This, and other US diplomatic actions, have had little material impact on Taiwan’s ability
Quasi-suicidal behavior from Taiwan.
“For all the support given by Washington, the reality is that when it comes to both civil and military defense, the democratically governed island still has a lot to do.” 1/
47
82
262
1
3
12
“Attacks subs [are the] single most important conventional asset [in the fight against China]”
This cannot be stressed enough, as nuclear attack subs represent possibly the greatest competitive edge in any technology for the US (assuming Fujian carrier is active and == CVN
The problems with AUKUS are that it involves Washington potentially depleting attack subs, its *single most important* conventional asset, just when it needs them most.
It’s not about personalities, except insofar as some choose to see the iceberg. 1/
21
22
98
1
1
14
“US and it’s allies largely deluded themselves into believing they had won for all time”
Crucial insight - Many in the west operate as if they’re at the end of history
That changes the balance of power is not plausible (as if the nth Taiwan Crisis will play out like the 3rd)
👇 100% correct. Meanwhile the US and its allies largely deluded themselves into believing they had won for all time, and allowed their own strength to atrophy.
31
55
433
3
2
14
Today’s US leaders have cut their teeth in the arena of lawfare and rhetoric
When their defense industrial base fails to produce - they launch multi billion dollar investigations
When their peer adversary far surpasses their industrial output - they call foul and launch an
Biden Administration Launches Probe into China's Unfair Shipbuildiing Practices
4
15
30
1
2
14
@sentdefender
it is also possible that this is just a plausible estimate
The conflict has been going on long enough that not just bombs and bullets, but second order effects of such a conflict in a heavily blockaded city with a high population density are leading to thousands of civilians
1
0
14
@Mattl8241
This doesn’t prove that the F35 was a success, just that there are deeper, fundamental problems with the way these projects are run (e.g. cost plus contracts)
2
0
16
This.
What good is technological superiority in a prototype or demo when you can produce it at scale?
America still has superior capability with most military technologies employed today (albeit 20-30 year old technologies, e.g. B2, Virginia, F22) but:
> the capability gap is
Technology is critical to success in modern conflict. No doubt.
But it is definitely not a panacea. We cannot bank on exquisite technological solutions or that we will be technology dominant over our most serious potential opponents, especially China.
13
14
82
2
3
12
Did the US “appease the aggressor” by avoiding direct conflict with the USSR after it invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Did these invasions cause the US and Russia to end up in a war?
No. You are engaged in a purely moralistic competition, as you’ve been conditioned in the
@osint_mercury
@sentdefender
Delusion about de-escalation without Russia losing the conflict is still there. By appeasing the aggressor you will only get war. This has been done over and over in history.
What should happen is destabilizing Russia internally and maximum support of Ukraine
1
0
1
1
2
13
@sentdefender
If this truly is a major reason for the delay in the response, and this becomes the SOP for such retaliatory attacks,
Then this just gives adversaries their window of opportunity for lower intensity engagements with US forces, in which they can avoid an immediate response.
1
0
13
Aside from the obvious dishonesty of such attempts, there is also just an overfitting of history going on when people do this
Reagan was not dealing with the same Russia
He understood the inherent risks of fighting a proxy war against a nuclear power - as evidenced by how
The attempt to use Reagan as a cudgel against the thrust of today’s Republican Party may not lead so much to stamping it out as to…discrediting Reagan to a new generation.
A lot of it has the vibe of telling a kid in 1975 that Bing Crosby would disapprove of Led Zeppelin. 1/
26
31
164
1
4
13
@alexbward
@Apex_WW
@JonLemire
This admin had three months of IRGC and proxy attacks to prep for this,
It appears that the focus was on domestic optics and covering for SecDef being indisposed.
The tensions in the Middle East are likely not something that can be waited out until after the elections
2
3
13
@2006Semvalidade
@sentdefender
These troops will not be able to be supported or sustained for the duration of such a conflict. Ideally for Russia, their Black Sea Fleet would have done enough to secure the Black Sea such that they could run landing ships and supply lines to Transnistria in such a conflict.
3
0
9
Exactly this, "People often confuse intellectual property vs ability to deliver".
It is a common trope, that is used to discredit China as an adversary, that they just copy off others [e.g. J11 == Su27, J15 == SU33, J31 == F35].
This is of course true, however it is of little
@osint_mercury
Building modern shipyards with enough workers and support staff to build at least 3 ships simultaneously. Continuously train up bench-strength so we can scale up. People often confusing having intellectual property vs ability to deliver.
1
0
16
2
1
12
While it is clear as day that the Houthis (and other ME groups) operate as a direct proxy of Iranian interests, this behavior across groups/theaters has made me more confident in claims that point the finger one level up to the parent node that is China.
And given that Russia
And there’s also the fact that proxies have been behaving suicidally or at least recklessly of late - Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis etc all picking fights with the superpower or its allies, very likely at their state bosses’ instigation. NK, if it went, would merely be the latest.
0
1
4
7
5
12
@sentdefender
Smaller NATO countries seem to be signaling escalation past the boundary, because they understand they have little influence over such decisions, and the US is not likely to allow such action
This is mostly political posturing, as western leaders seem to be willing to trade off
7
3
12
@BadIdeaGuyJohn1
@sentdefender
It can. NATO is effectively an extension of US foreign policy. It may be less so than previous decades, as US soft power has began to recede, however if the US we’re sufficiently motivated to prevent action by a small Eastern European NATO member because it felt that such an
2
2
9
@ThatMattOBrien
It is skewing, as the US has 9 more carriers, and each carrier is the equivalent of ten destroyers in tonnage, and PLAN simply needs less carriers
Also the contribution of the Australian Navy is negligible in a conflict over Taiwan. Taiwan’s surface fleet will be rendered
4
1
12
I find myself having to adjust my priors for the competence and seriousness of world powers
The US had not planned for the eventuality of personnel being killed even after >100 attacks. This was followed by days of threats and inaction, eventually concluding with little real
According to Channel 14, the Latest Assessment by Israeli Intelligence suggests that the Iranian Retaliatory Attack will occur in a matter of Days and in the First Phase will consist of Dozens of Missile launches from Forces in Iran, Iraq, and Yemen; though the Participation of
183
420
2K
0
1
11
Inflation and the ballooning of the most expensive program in DOD history are not separate issues
Inflation is an instrument used to fund such programs
US leadership has repeatedly traded off the future for the present
Unfortunately, the bill may come due in the next peer
Is it so hard for people to read the report but writing stuff?? The estimated cost has risen because there's something called inflation and USAF now plans to operate them until 2088 instead of 2077. It's not that to understand
7
5
121
0
0
10
@sentdefender
That pk against ballistic missiles is unrealistically high (exaggeration is to be expected from spokesman/government officials),
The near perfect pk against subsonic drones and cruise missiles is to be expected though
2
1
10
This is an incredible useful visual that clearly delineates why Asia should be the priority.
As
@ElbridgeColby
has said, to much dismay, Europe and the Middle East are truly of secondary and tertiary importance, as this is how a competently operated US would make trade offs.
History is running in reverse.
For thousands of years, the center of the world economy was in Asia.
Then, over a few hundred years, it moved West.
Now, in just a few decades, it's come back to Asia.
111
285
2K
1
2
11
I’m not at all committed to this idea, but I do think its debatable:
Encouraging nuclear development for a few key players (Japan, South Korea, Poland), rather than nuclear sharing (which is more effective without a US No First Use policy) might both reduce the likelihood of
the argument is that we can't have a NFU policy while maintaining so many commitments with increasingly overstretched conventional resources since our adversaries, particularly China, are quickly closing the conventional military advantage we've enjoyed for many decades.
0
0
2
6
2
10
Despite ambitious plans, Navy shipbuilding has faced severe challenges, with an average of just 8.5 battle force ships procured annually between 1986 and 2016.
The contraction of U.S. shipyards, from 14 to seven, contrasts sharply with China's expanding naval capabilities.
1
4
11
@ThatMattOBrien
The trade off is not Ukraine > USN, as we’re not sending SM-6s to Ukraine (although USN is expending them in the Red Sea), the trade off is Ukraine > ROC
Taiwan will need any land based systems they can get their hands on, including 155s, ATGMs and so on to bog down PLA landing
3
2
9
@Drake_Marcus
@sentdefender
Sure such border deployments and staging would be within the scope of any sovereign country, I meant that foreign deployments of NATO troops into Ukraine could be stopped by the US as the (overwhelmingly) primary stakeholder in NATO, especially relative to the (smaller) Eastern
1
1
11
@AdamKinzinger
Hamas does not have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the US and saturating meager BMD defenses, these two situations are not comparable in any way
2
0
11
It is true that the China conflict should take first priority, and that no forces should be intentionally withheld from such a conflict.
However, a lot of US forces (the majority?) will be kept out of such a fight simply because they won’t be able to get close enough to have an
No US forces can be “withheld” from a China fight. Everything needs to be prioritized.
South Korea and NATO should prepare accordingly.
16
22
76
1
3
11
“There are no solutions, only tradeoffs”
Many have learned the opposite lesson in the theater of domestic politics, where all tradeoffs are abstracted away or pushed into the future (debt, inflation, social welfare)
Anything that requires resources, manpower or money is scarce.
What’s provably wrong is denying this from
@JDVance1
, which is just factually true and central:
“It’s that America is stretched too thin. We do not have the industrial capacity to support a war in Ukraine, in Israel, if the Chinese invade Taiwan. We have to pick and choose.”
99
86
394
0
4
9
“It is not pre-ordained to continue” is a key insight that sounds trivial, but almost no one actually factors into their world model
People think that America is the same America of 1945 or 1991 - it’s not, these are outliers. Such dominance (industrial and strategic) is hard
A reminder that while the US historically had the entrepreneurial, innovative culture necessary for tremendous
#tech
advances, & still retains advantages, it is not pre-ordained to continue.
#China
is doing better than many critical think.
#STEM
#semiconductors
0
2
9
1
1
10
1. There is a massive difference between information being searchable, and what benefits from mass media distribution - most Americans *do not* know about the dispute over NATO expansion 1991-2022 (the invasion is unjustified, but it has a pretext)
2 & 3 are correct
Tbd what
1. Putin’s long explanations for why he invaded a sovereign nation are posted online. Anyone who cares to know what he thinks can learn it.
2. Putin kills journalists and anyone who dissents.
3. American journalists are prisoners in Russia. Please remember them.
95
117
551
3
4
8
The points substantiating his argument are mostly wrong/overstated (esp about Mideast oil, China’s influence grows as US soft power to block them in the region recedes), but directionally his argument is right -> limiting US v China competition to economics should be the highest
This is misinformed and unserious thinking about the threat that China poses to Taiwan and U.S. interests:
1. Yes, China does not want a war with the U.S. However, that doesn't mean they won't use force to get what they want if they think that's their only option...
17
64
536
4
3
10
Many in the NatSec space often lose sight of the ‘why’
NatSec is important in so far as it protects the interests of your citizens
While limiting certain rights/prosperity of your citizens may achieve certain NatSec goals, it is not a justifiable trade off
If NatSec has to
BREAKING: The IRS will now target individuals who threaten the U.S. government’s 'ability to govern,' a vague new criterion for criminal investigations. This includes protesters of 'foreign relations' under the guise of 'national security,' according to its updated operating
749
3K
7K
2
3
10
Precisely,
While CENTCOM should not be prioritized over PACOM the way that it is, there are objectives of strategic importance to US interests in the Middle East:
> maintaining alliances on the peninsula, namely preventing Saudi from moving toward China
> protecting vital
Seems to me the right mix is both:
Drawing down highly exposed US troops conducting missions of questionable utility *and* taking a tougher line designed to impose costs.
Show Iran the consequences of attacking our forces while reducing our vulnerabilities. 1/
17
35
164
0
3
10
@BadIdeaGuyJohn1
@Drake_Marcus
@sentdefender
Troops from NATO countries. People seem to think that legal semantics can justify actions against Russia regardless of how they are perceived by Russia. If Belarus attacked Poland, NATO would (understandably) attribute the action to Russia - either that they had prior knowledge,
1
1
9
Limited engagements against South Korean ships [1], or South Korean positions of lower strategic importance [2] [3], are all within envelope, and can be expected to continue.
North Korea may come to test where exactly the threshold for significant US retaliation lies.
The
North Korea will be bolstering up military preparedness near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) due to frequent violations by South Korean ships. If North Korea performs visible preparations, South Korea will likely report on them soon.
If any violation occurs again, North Korea
5
89
242
1
3
10
@ElbridgeColby
> it is understandable why leaders of a nation at war would ask for such help
> it is not understandable for NATO to entertain the prospect of turning this proxy war into a direct peer conflict
At the end of the day, the top priority of any nation should be their own interests
1
1
10