Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America’s followers,’ says Macron

[_Anonymous_]

Source for the above - trust me bro. RST is doing to sociology what he's been doing to defence analysis . Butchering & buggering it . And to make matters worse we've a no good Irishman who can rarely tell his face from his a r s e jump in to the middle of something he knows ABSOLUTELY nothing about.

 

[randomradio]

Any behaviour based on biology for either success or survival follows Darwinian rules, simple.

If you own a company and it's time to choose a successor, you can do it two ways, either hand it over to your potentially no-good son for the sake of survival of the family, or you choose someone outside the family based on earned merit. The former is done by kings, the latter is done by companies typically. But both rooted in Darwinism.

In China, the social system was such that any slight by a member of a family towards higher status families meant the eradication of the lower family. It's why they devise punishments that destroy multiple generations of a family, and is very likely practiced even today in China. So they prioritised survival based rules of Darwinism, with the core being the survival of the fittest.

Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And people who were basically free to do anything they wanted. The fittest.

Eight Deliberations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Otoh, India's caste system and the modern day democracy's protection of minority rights, both go against the rules of Darwinism. The former was designed to bring ambition under control, in fact it was meant to channel ambition in a positive direction, where each person was given a place in society and had the option of switching professions based on individual capacity. We basically call this system education today and the people are called professionals.

And democracies protect minorities as part of human rights, but that in turn creates more divisions and more friction when the majority has to share power with the minority, who by any means would normally never get power, thereby eventually bringing the existing system down. Like Muslims asking for the introduction of Shariah law when they reach a certain threshold in terms of population, that's seditious behaviour. Biology has the ability to crush both.

Today, we like education and human rights, both go against Darwin. But authoritarian regimes like Darwin so much that they like to control both.

Just like in biology, Darwin's theory is all-encompassing even in society. As thinking creatures, we merely have the ability to go against it when we apply the right control mechanisms. But most people have the habit of defaulting to biology when the opportunity presents itself, and education and rights are supposed to stop us from defaulting to biology.

The system of marriage also goes against Darwin. As per Darwin, only the best men are supposed to get all the women, the rest are supposed to just curl up and die alone. Fat chance of making that work in society.

 

[_Anonymous_]

From the same Wikipedia source .

The occurrence of this punishment was somewhat rare, with relatively few sentences recorded throughout history.

Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the Chinese sources are generally reliable plus exhaustive as compared to other contemporary sources particularly Indian ones since the former were excellent record keepers with a good number of their records surviving till date.

Hundred Schools of Thought - Wikipedia

This should give one an insight into the genius of ancient China . Next to India they're perhaps the only surviving continuous pre historical civilization with as rich a tradition as ours in the arts , crafts , religion , culture , philosophy etc .

While the Greek ( ancient civilization but not pre historical as compared to the 4 pre historical civilizations viz : Chinese , Indian , Egyptian or even Mesopotamia ) schools of philosophy have been extensively studied & catalogued since the Enlightenment & Renaissance in Europe & Indic philosophy ever since our colonization , Chinese philosophy or their various schools of philosophy have been little studied or understood outside the Sinosphere & the pursuit of philosophy as we know is the very anti thesis of Darwinism - social or otherwise although Darwinism itself is a philosophy.

But why let facts get into the way of a narrative.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Escorts do not have that range. Multiple refuelling stops will have to be made, and numerous supply stops as well, at 22.5kt 'cause cruise speeds are much lower than that. And once you get to the battlespace, there's not much supplies available. And the Chinese have enough numbers to surround you.

It could take a month for the MN to arrive. And, as I said before, the number of ships is not enough. The arrival of the CdG/PANG may stop an invasion of New Caledonia, but not the other islands. And you will have to give up on protecting French shores in the meantime.

The food (120 tonnes) and fuel (3,400 tonnes) capacity of the Charles de Gaulle gives it 45 days of total autonomy in operation. Its air group can carry out 100 flights a day for 7 days, i.e. more than 700 flights in total autonomy. This means that it must refuel at sea during long missions lasting several months, which its nuclear propulsion allows it to do.

A refuelling tanker providing a further 30 days of total autonomy is permanently assigned to GAN TF473 to refuel the Charles de Gaulle and the other ships in the group. With just one refuelling a week, the level of fuel on board never falls below 70%, i.e. more than a month of total autonomy in operation. During high-intensity warfare missions, a second tanker is deployed as back-up. While one remains with the fleet, the other can shuttle to refuelling points to ensure the permanent presence of a tanker alongside the Charles de Gaulle. This reinforced system was used in 2002 during Operation Heracles off the coast of Afghanistan.

Information report no. 358 by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces Committee on the future of the naval air arm states that :

• the cruising speed of the Charles de Gaulle's carrier group is improved compared with a conventionally powered aircraft carrier thanks to the significant reduction in its refuelling requirements. A conventional aircraft carrier requiring refuelling every three or four days has to adjust its cruising speed to that of the accompanying tanker, i.e. 13 knots, whereas a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can adjust its cruising speed to that of its escort;
• thanks to more space, the Charles de Gaulle can carry more jet fuel and cover the consumption of three frigates for 10 days. At an average speed of 22 knots, the aircraft carrier and its escort can, for example, sail from Toulon to Ormuz in 8 days via the Suez Canal, or in 22 days via the Cape of Good Hope, travelling 1,000 km a day.

The Charles de Gaulle can carry out the same missions as those carried out by an American heavy aircraft carrier, but with a crew almost three times smaller, and a higher rate of effort: with 20 aircraft on board during the Bois Belleau mission carried out over five weeks with the USS Harry S. Truman and its 60 aircraft, the Charles de Gaulle put 45 aircraft into the air per day and the USS Harry S. Truman 60 aircraft.

The embarked air group (GAE) varies according to the mission, and can reach 40 aircraft, all of which can be stored in the hangar since the last major technical shutdown (ATM) (the technical installations and parts storage areas specific to the Super-Etendard have been dismantled since 2016).

 

[randomradio]

The food (120 tonnes) and fuel (3,400 tonnes) capacity of the Charles de Gaulle gives it 45 days of total autonomy in operation. Its air group can carry out 100 flights a day for 7 days, i.e. more than 700 flights in total autonomy. This means that it must refuel at sea during long missions lasting several months, which its nuclear propulsion allows it to do.

A refuelling tanker providing a further 30 days of total autonomy is permanently assigned to GAN TF473 to refuel the Charles de Gaulle and the other ships in the group. With just one refuelling a week, the level of fuel on board never falls below 70%, i.e. more than a month of total autonomy in operation. During high-intensity warfare missions, a second tanker is deployed as back-up. While one remains with the fleet, the other can shuttle to refuelling points to ensure the permanent presence of a tanker alongside the Charles de Gaulle. This reinforced system was used in 2002 during Operation Heracles off the coast of Afghanistan.

Information report no. 358 by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces Committee on the future of the naval air arm states that :

• the cruising speed of the Charles de Gaulle's carrier group is improved compared with a conventionally powered aircraft carrier thanks to the significant reduction in its refuelling requirements. A conventional aircraft carrier requiring refuelling every three or four days has to adjust its cruising speed to that of the accompanying tanker, i.e. 13 knots, whereas a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can adjust its cruising speed to that of its escort;
• thanks to more space, the Charles de Gaulle can carry more jet fuel and cover the consumption of three frigates for 10 days. At an average speed of 22 knots, the aircraft carrier and its escort can, for example, sail from Toulon to Ormuz in 8 days via the Suez Canal, or in 22 days via the Cape of Good Hope, travelling 1,000 km a day.

The Charles de Gaulle can carry out the same missions as those carried out by an American heavy aircraft carrier, but with a crew almost three times smaller, and a higher rate of effort: with 20 aircraft on board during the Bois Belleau mission carried out over five weeks with the USS Harry S. Truman and its 60 aircraft, the Charles de Gaulle put 45 aircraft into the air per day and the USS Harry S. Truman 60 aircraft.

The embarked air group (GAE) varies according to the mission, and can reach 40 aircraft, all of which can be stored in the hangar since the last major technical shutdown (ATM) (the technical installations and parts storage areas specific to the Super-Etendard have been dismantled since 2016).

As fast as that is, it requires refuelling checkpoints. In case of travelling to the Pacific, it's about 18000-22000Km via Panama or 19000-23000Km via Suez. That's effectively 20+ days of travel at greatest efficiency, without enemy action challenging the CBG or harassing the tankers or both.

I fear that by the time the CBG will reach the Pacific, the Chinese will have already taken many of the islands.

MN requires permanent large-scale presence in the Pacific by 2030.

 

[randomradio]

Ignorants seems to have confused real, ingrained, hardcore biology with whimsical philosophy. Ah, well.... whatever.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

As fast as that is, it requires refuelling checkpoints. In case of travelling to the Pacific, it's about 18000-22000Km via Panama or 19000-23000Km via Suez. That's effectively 20+ days of travel at greatest efficiency, without enemy action challenging the CBG or harassing the tankers or both.

The naval air group to which the CDG belongs is extremely powerful, with not only 40 aircrafts including 36 Rafales, but also a nuclear attack submarine and anti-aircraft and anti-submarine frigates. It's not that easy to harass it on the open sea, far from its bases, without running the risk of being the one who gets hosed.

I fear that by the time the CBG will reach the Pacific, the Chinese will have already taken many of the islands.

MN requires permanent large-scale presence in the Pacific by 2030.

The arrival of the aircraft carrier is only a complement to the action which consists of deploying around twenty Rafales in less than 72 hours, in order to contain the Chinese who will have to act 11,000 km from their land.

It goes without saying that these 20 Rafales will be in 'surge' mode until the aircraft carrier arrives.

That's a potential 7,000-hour mission, but every time a Rafale flies a 1.5-hour mission, the Chinese will have to fly a 10-11-hour mission to counter it, so they'll be able to generate 49,000 hours in a month (more than the IAF's annual number of hours), or else they'll have to wait for the Chinese aircraft carriers to get closer, and as they're not nuclear-powered, they'll move half as fast as the CDG and arrive at the same time as it.

 

[zinswinsin]

I feel like discussion about the UK and France in the Pacific is mostly irrelevant. The UK and France are too small sans at the EU level to impact the Indo Pacific.

What scenario would France fight a war with China without the USA?

The CDG is an effective carrier, but even a US CSG is limited against China without Japan air assets, many ground support etc.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I feel like discussion about the UK and France in the Pacific is mostly irrelevant. The UK and France are too small sans at the EU level to impact the Indo Pacific.

What scenario would France fight a war with China without the USA?

The CDG is an effective carrier, but even a US CSG is limited against China without Japan air assets, many ground support etc.

But if the Chinese wanted to take our Pacific territories by force, and if we couldn't stop them using conventional means, we would end up sending 300 nuclear warheads to mainland China, because our Pacific territories, where 2 million French people live, are obviously part of our vital interests and our doctrine authorises the use of nuclear weapons to defend our vital interests.

In any case, the CDG is more powerful than a US aircraft carrier because the Rafale is capable of producing many more flight hours than US aircraft.

 

[Innominate]

In any case, the CDG is more powerful than a US aircraft carrier because the Rafale is capable of producing many more flight hours than US aircraft.

 

[randomradio]

The naval air group to which the CDG belongs is extremely powerful, with not only 40 aircrafts including 36 Rafales, but also a nuclear attack submarine and anti-aircraft and anti-submarine frigates. It's not that easy to harass it on the open sea, far from its bases, without running the risk of being the one who gets hosed.

The arrival of the aircraft carrier is only a complement to the action which consists of deploying around twenty Rafales in less than 72 hours, in order to contain the Chinese who will have to act 11,000 km from their land.

It goes without saying that these 20 Rafales will be in 'surge' mode until the aircraft carrier arrives.

That's a potential 7,000-hour mission, but every time a Rafale flies a 1.5-hour mission, the Chinese will have to fly a 10-11-hour mission to counter it, so they'll be able to generate 49,000 hours in a month (more than the IAF's annual number of hours), or else they'll have to wait for the Chinese aircraft carriers to get closer, and as they're not nuclear-powered, they'll move half as fast as the CDG and arrive at the same time as it.

Hang on, I'm assuming that the Chinese have multiple carriers and multiple ships. And that both sides are not gonna start moving at the same time.

Meaning, the Chinese will have enough assets at sea to intercept those 20 Rafales as well as the CBG even before they reach the battlespace in an environment where the USN has withdrawn due to heavy losses post Taiwan or Japan or SoKo.

This scenario basically envisions an invasion of Pacific islands so the Chinese will have the upperhand in achieving surprise. And this scenario has not taken into consideration that the CdG won't be available, which is what the Chinese will wait for in the first place.

 

[randomradio]

I feel like discussion about the UK and France in the Pacific is mostly irrelevant. The UK and France are too small sans at the EU level to impact the Indo Pacific.

What scenario would France fight a war with China without the USA?

The CDG is an effective carrier, but even a US CSG is limited against China without Japan air assets, many ground support etc.

The French have a philosophy of non-interference in the Pacific, so the US, UK, Aus, Taiwan and Japan, perhaps SoKo, are gonna have to fight it out on their own. In case of severe losses or defeat of US forces, the Chinese can then concentrate on the Pacific islands in the South Pacific, which France has to deal with on its own.

 

[randomradio]

But if the Chinese wanted to take our Pacific territories by force, and if we couldn't stop them using conventional means, we would end up sending 300 nuclear warheads to mainland China, because our Pacific territories, where 2 million French people live, are obviously part of our vital interests and our doctrine authorises the use of nuclear weapons to defend our vital interests.

In any case, the CDG is more powerful than a US aircraft carrier because the Rafale is capable of producing many more flight hours than US aircraft.

Two scenarios then:
France's interest in risking Paris over some islands in the Pacific, especially in a situation where the Chinese have guaranteed the survival of the majority of the inhabitants. A somewhat of a bloodless invasion of the islands.

Or China has already been devastated in a nuclear war with the US, so they don't really care about another round of nukes. They are merely mopping up future threats.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Two scenarios then:
France's interest in risking Paris over some islands in the Pacific, especially in a situation where the Chinese have guaranteed the survival of the majority of the inhabitants. A somewhat of a bloodless invasion of the islands.

Or China has already been devastated in a nuclear war with the US, so they don't really care about another round of nukes. They are merely mopping up future threats.

What about the scenario where China has to risk Beijing for a few islands?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Hang on, I'm assuming that the Chinese have multiple carriers and multiple ships. And that both sides are not gonna start moving at the same time.

Meaning, the Chinese will have enough assets at sea to intercept those 20 Rafales as well as the CBG even before they reach the battlespace in an environment where the USN has withdrawn due to heavy losses post Taiwan or Japan or SoKo.

This scenario basically envisions an invasion of Pacific islands so the Chinese will have the upperhand in achieving surprise. And this scenario has not taken into consideration that the CdG won't be available, which is what the Chinese will wait for in the first place.

And I'm making the assumption that we'll see the Chinese preparations and that we'll anticipate their increase in power. If the CDG is unavailable, we'll send the Rafale M to the islands and our A400Ms will have more work to do, so it won't be a disaster.

 

[randomradio]

What about the scenario where China has to risk Beijing for a few islands?

There should already be a big war going on in favour of the Chinese for this scenario to happen. First and foremost, the USN needs to be defeated, and it could result in a nuclear exchange.

Also, to France it's a few islands, but to China it's control over the entire Pacific. A defeat of the USN could result in a potential invasion of SEA and Australia. So island-hopping into French territories is merely the next step.

There's also a possibility that no nuclear war will be fought, no different from how chemical weapons were not used during WW2 in Europe.

And I'm making the assumption that we'll see the Chinese preparations and that we'll anticipate their increase in power. If the CDG is unavailable, we'll send the Rafale M to the islands and our A400Ms will have more work to do, so it won't be a disaster.

That's less survivable than a CBG, and is highly prone to interception during transit. The same with supplies meant to support it.

Also, Chinese preparations is quite subjective. What if their normal year-round presence in the South Pacific is enough for pre-invasion positioning? They are expected to have a navy not just rivaling the USN but potentially much, much bigger.

 

[zinswinsin]

The French have a philosophy of non-interference in the Pacific, so the US, UK, Aus, Taiwan and Japan, perhaps SoKo, are gonna have to fight it out on their own. In case of severe losses or defeat of US forces, the Chinese can then concentrate on the Pacific islands in the South Pacific, which France has to deal with on its own.

Which they can't since why would the French Navy be able to deal with something the US Navy couldn't?

Hence, my point about this being mostly fantasy discussion.

But if the Chinese wanted to take our Pacific territories by force, and if we couldn't stop them using conventional means, we would end up sending 300 nuclear warheads to mainland China, because our Pacific territories, where 2 million French people live, are obviously part of our vital interests and our doctrine authorises the use of nuclear weapons to defend our vital interests.

In any case, the CDG is more powerful than a US aircraft carrier because the Rafale is capable of producing many more flight hours than US aircraft.

Sheer bluster lol. France isn't going to nuke China and accept Paris destruction over 1 Pacific Island.

This is what I'm talking about. All of this is fantasy level theory never practical.

Maybe, in an anime tv show France can send a CDG to deal with the Chinese Navy if the USN loses, but in reality the French get blown up or surrender.

Otherwise, if the USN wins, don't need the CDG showing up do we?

 

[randomradio]

Which they can't since why would the French Navy be able to deal with something the US Navy couldn't?

Hence, my point about this being mostly fantasy discussion.

The Chinese have a different set of advantages over the USN versus the French. The USN has to fight near China, whereas the Chinese have to come to French territories, giving France the advantage.

Sheer bluster lol. France isn't going to nuke China and accept Paris destruction over 1 Pacific Island.

This is what I'm talking about. All of this is fantasy level theory never practical.

Maybe, in an anime tv show France can send a CDG to deal with the Chinese Navy if the USN loses, but in reality the French get blown up or surrender.

Otherwise, if the USN wins, don't need the CDG showing up do we?

This discussion shouldn't consider nukes. Just one conventional capability versus another.

The point is as you said, the MN is way too small to deal with the Chinese, so they have no choice but to expand to the same size as the RN or even the IN's planned fleet. They basically need a minimum 150-ship navy, up from 60-70 today. So triple the carriers, double the destroyers and submarines, more military port infrastructure in the Pacific and so on.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The Chinese have a different set of advantages over the USN versus the French. The USN has to fight near China, whereas the Chinese have to come to French territories, giving France the advantage.

This discussion shouldn't consider nukes. Just one conventional capability versus another.

The point is as you said, the MN is way too small to deal with the Chinese, so they have no choice but to expand to the same size as the RN or even the IN's planned fleet. They basically need a minimum 150-ship navy, up from 60-70 today. So triple the carriers, double the destroyers and submarines, more military port infrastructure in the Pacific and so on.

You can't understand that we're used to doing things with very few resources. And then there are several ways of using the nuc, we could very well send an M 51 on each of the Chinese aircraft carriers, for example.

 

[Amarante]

(...), we could very well send an M 51 on each of the Chinese aircraft carriers, for example.

for such a "pre-strategic" strike, more like an ASMPA, no?
which assumes that we have vectors in the area...