H-20 being a hugh subsonic/supersonic stealth bomber instead of just a B-21 copy would be fitting to the Chinese strategic needs, as they would need speed to nuke the US across the Pacific since they don't have any close by bases.
What's the point of all these hyper advanced toys if the US is too fricked to ever use them in a real war(Russia/China) because >MUH NUKES
just keep making more late Cold War ooga booga tech to ship to shitholes in proxy wars
It's not 100% clear the US institutional reticence to fight a conventional war with Russia applies to China. Russian doctrine employs tactical nukes that could quickly escalate WW3 to a nuclear war, China doesn't. A conventional Pacific War between the USN and PLAANAF2QS+ seems plausible.
China's entire nuclear doctrine is essentially >we know we'd never survive a first strike and we'd be decimated in a counter-strike, so our nuclear force is essentially just a 'frick you' response
Whether China would actually use them tactically, we don't know. No nation with nukes has been pushed to near total defeat.
But it's the opposite really. >US nukes China first kills 600+ millions of chinese. >China retaliates kills 300+ millions of muhricans. >China wins because even if you've killed twice the number of bug people you haven't even killed half of them.
Their take on MAD is that it just doesn't applies to them.
Which is why by extension they can make anti-carriers ballistic missiles, something neither Russia or the US (who have had the technology to do so for decades) would risk by fear of the opponent mistaking them for nuclear ballistic missile.
a kite
idk, can you provide a source?
It's a weather balloon.
Check this infographic.
B1 Lancer
famas
Stop edging me op.
It's the H-6Z
>variable geometry in 20xx
y tho
what dat tail do tho
little peggy fella
a blurry photo posted by a homosexual
I wouldn't worry about it
It's fricking happening
H-20 being a hugh subsonic/supersonic stealth bomber instead of just a B-21 copy would be fitting to the Chinese strategic needs, as they would need speed to nuke the US across the Pacific since they don't have any close by bases.
sex
What's the point of all these hyper advanced toys if the US is too fricked to ever use them in a real war(Russia/China) because
>MUH NUKES
just keep making more late Cold War ooga booga tech to ship to shitholes in proxy wars
>fricked
cucked
Yeah I can agree with this
killing guerillas in pajamas was a solved problem by like 1985
It's not 100% clear the US institutional reticence to fight a conventional war with Russia applies to China. Russian doctrine employs tactical nukes that could quickly escalate WW3 to a nuclear war, China doesn't. A conventional Pacific War between the USN and PLAANAF2QS+ seems plausible.
China's entire nuclear doctrine is essentially
>we know we'd never survive a first strike and we'd be decimated in a counter-strike, so our nuclear force is essentially just a 'frick you' response
Whether China would actually use them tactically, we don't know. No nation with nukes has been pushed to near total defeat.
Isn't that just everyone's nuclear doctrine though? Well except for the crayon eaters who are expected to fight through the fallout
But it's the opposite really.
>US nukes China first kills 600+ millions of chinese.
>China retaliates kills 300+ millions of muhricans.
>China wins because even if you've killed twice the number of bug people you haven't even killed half of them.
Their take on MAD is that it just doesn't applies to them.
Which is why by extension they can make anti-carriers ballistic missiles, something neither Russia or the US (who have had the technology to do so for decades) would risk by fear of the opponent mistaking them for nuclear ballistic missile.
MAD doesn't exist and China doesn't have enough nukes to win an exchange with the US.
Probably just a B-1b at a funky angle. I wouldn't worry about it.
I'm not seeing anything, what the frick are you talking about OP.