NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would win in a war? China or the US

Depends.

If it goes to Nukes. The US. Well sorta

Problem is the world would suffer from the exchange.

China isn't going to be invading too much anytime soon. They want economics and they are getting it.....

I don't believe either side would win.

Remember that old 80's movie.. "War Games" at the end of the movie "Joshua" the computer notes that the only way to win is not to play.

When it comes to two countries going at each other with nukes.. there is no winner. Nuclear war in this day in age can't be won with another country that also have nukes. That's why you don't see the US banging down North Korea's door.

There are no winners in a nuclear war.

If it was conventional war.. I tend to lean towards China simply based on their population. You can't beat China with an air war alone. Troops would have to be on the ground. I doubt the USA ground force could take China because of shear volume.

I'd have to go with China, provided they can come up with some way to stop a bombing campaign. But it would be unrealistic to say that the United States would invade China or China would invade the United States, as China has no capability to be crossing the ocean with large amounts of troops, and neither does the United States.

I'd have to go with China, provided they can come up with some way to stop a bombing campaign. But it would be unrealistic to say that the United States would invade China or China would invade the United States, as China has no capability to be crossing the ocean with large amounts of troops, and neither does the United States.

Yeah, I agree and therefore was inclined to say no one would win, because it's just not going to happen.

If it goes to nukes, nasty statemate.

Conventional war; well, neither side could concievably hold onto each others land for very long. Another stalemate.

Who voted France??

Barring nuclear exchanges, the United States holds the advantage in a conventional war. They do have the capability of deploying large numbers of troops across the Pacific. The US has at least two allies in the area they can count on as a staging area, Taiwan and Japan, the Philippines maybe. China has no allies on the other end of the Pacific, they also have a Navy that is slightly better than the model fleet that fires spitballs.
China cannot hope to invade the US, the Chinese have no ability to destroy the US Navy, and no Navy of their own to get across. The US holds the edge in the Air Force, and general logistics. China has an edge in sheer numbers of men, some would joke the US doesn't have enough bullets.
But these advantages do not help the US decisively win the war, at the most the US can hope to blockade China, bombard it, and occupy the dense coastal areas. Barring an uprising of the Chinese against China, the US cannot mount an expedition into central or western China, the only approaches are through the most ardous terrain on the planet. To do so would require a lot of time and patience, something I don't believe the US would have after what would be large losses in coastal operations.

It all depends on who is doing the invading. I would say that whoever invades will probably loose.

America, even if it didn't go nuclear

because china's navy is tiny and though china can put up 100,000 million men it would be hard pressed to feed, clothe, arm and lead them all

Remember what China did in Korea? They lost huge numbers of troops. They probably follow the same course of action. But the US military of today is not the US military of Korea. It would be no problem, the US would win, by making the Chinese starve, which could cause a coup.If it went nuclear, China would cease to exist. We should arm the Japanese as they seem to be able to fight the Chinese quite well.

Remember what China did in Korea? They lost huge numbers of troops. They probably follow the same course of action. But the US military of today is not the US military of Korea. It would be no problem, the US would win, by making the Chinese starve, which could cause a coup.If it went nuclear, China would cease to exist. We should arm the Japanese as they seem to be able to fight the Chinese quite well.

It would be quite difficult to make them starve considering that they make most of their own food, unless we started to throw around non-conventional weapons.

Remember what China did in Korea? They lost huge numbers of troops. They probably follow the same course of action. But the US military of today is not the US military of Korea. It would be no problem, the US would win, by making the Chinese starve, which could cause a coup.If it went nuclear, China would cease to exist. We should arm the Japanese as they seem to be able to fight the Chinese quite well.

Japan invading China, won't that look just a tad bit suspicious to the rest of the world?

I'm going to have to go with France on this one, becuase it is the only third party mentioned. China cannot hope to defeat the United States in the Pacific, but the US cannot hope to occupy all of China without the Chinese populace (which is at the most, a chance). And even if it does get the populace on it's side and the Communists are toppled, there still is a messy post-war situation to deal with (Does the KMT take power in China again from Taiwan, or does Taiwan stay seperate, how is it established), and the problems created by the war like a collapse of very equitable trade, paying the costs of a massive military force, and the casualties. France on the other hand will only suffer from whatever trade is lost with the US, no military casualties, no wartime costs, their trade might even grow to replace US industry devoted to war.

Who voted France??
I did. With China and the US fighting to extinction, or at least getting close to it, France, as the 3rd otpion, is the winner.

The Sword and the Shield pretty much hit it on the head with his first post.

I put France in their as a joke. I didn't think anybody would really take that seriously. When was the last time the french won a war. Napoleon was Corsican, so he does not count as a french man.

I put France in their as a joke. I didn't think anybody would really take that seriously. When was the last time the french won a war. Napoleon was Corsican, so he does not count as a french man.
WWII, I believe.

China would get smoked.

I put France in their as a joke. I didn't think anybody would really take that seriously. When was the last time the french won a war. Napoleon was Corsican, so he does not count as a french man.

But he learned the art of war in France, not Corsica, and the military he led was French, not Corsican. And he wasn't the only brilliant military mind of France, his Marshals who were all French were also quite brilliant in their own right (well.... most of them). And WWII was the last major war they won, WWI was the last major war they can claim to have borne the brunt of the fighting and won.

The USA could no way destroy China through force of conventional arms. Discounting nukes, the only thing they could do is blockade it and starve it's populace. China is a net food importer, as was Japan prior to WW2. Japan were forced to make a land grab for the future of it's people, and I think China will have to do the same thing in the not too far future.

As for France, I voted for them. Neither America or China would benefit from a war against one another. America would lose it's primary cheap source of consumer goods, and the lack of available production capacity in the USA would make the populace very unhappy, very quickly. China, on the otherhand, would lose a big market, and not be able to import enough food or raw materials for it's industries.

The last war the French won was probably one of Napoleon's minor campaigns. If you count the whole war as one though, they lost that. After WW1, the French were severly depleted in terms of manpower. Had it not been for Britain's blockade of Germany then Germany could have kept on going while France ran out of men to fight. They reffered to the 18-40 year olds after WW1 as the 'hollow-classes' for a reason - there wasn't many of them left! You can hardly say they won WW2 either. Sure, they were on the winning side, but they were occupied for the best part of the war. The winner's of WW2 were the USA, Russia and China alone. Britain came off far worse than it went into it.

Sorry for going OT.

France did not win solely by themselves. Germany owned them until we landed in Normandy and started the campaign east.

Vive La France

With men like Mitterand, De Gaulle, Hauteclocque Leclerq, Joffre, De lattre de Tasigny, Napoleon, Louis XIV you can win any war.

Between China and the US, it would be a massacre without a winner, China's too big(and mountainous) for the US to control and the Chinese dont possess the capabilities to invade the US.
And i dont thnik other Asian nations are just going to sit by and watch.

France did not win solely by themselves. Germany owned them until we landed in Normandy and started the campaign east.

They had the right equipment, they lacked a good formula to use this equipment
Thats all.

I did. With China and the US fighting to extinction, or at least getting close to it, France, as the 3rd otpion, is the winner.

china would obviously win america cant stop shooting down thair own and other allies troops (iraq) and the china have alot of men mayb tripple the amount america do and would slaughter them

Vive La France

With men like Mitterand, De Gaulle, Hauteclocque Leclerq, Joffre, De lattre de Tasigny, Napoleon, Louis XIV you can win any war.

Between China and the US, it would be a massacre without a winner, China's too big(and mountainous) for the US to control and the Chinese dont possess the capabilities to invade the US.
And i dont thnik other Asian nations are just going to sit by and watch.


a war cannot be won by a few good men.

exactly. The fact is, the French have never won a single major campaign since before the start of documented history.

welp lets look at this realistically
we arent going to invade mainland china, they arent going to invade the US
what might we fight over?
how about taiwan?
now the chinese military likes glory as much as any army so this could happen.
do we have the will to fight for taiwan?
im thinking we don't
im thinking that china could take taiwan anytime they want to push the issue hard enough
so
china wins

china would obviously win america cant stop shooting down thair own and other allies troops (iraq) and the china have alot of men mayb tripple the amount america do and would slaughter them

How many friendly fire deaths have there been in the last two decades, these things happen in war (and even not in war sometimes). Do you think other nations have not fired on their own troops or allies troops before? During Operation Goodwood (The British breakout from the beach head to Caen, the one that worked), USAAF and RAF bombers called in for air support dropped a large amount of ordnance on friendly troops killing around 100, during Operation Cobra (The American breakout to Brittany), the same bombers tallied up 125 Amercans killed. The majority of friendly fire killings being done by American forces today probably has something to do with US Air Force and Navy aircraft doing most of the bombing, therefore the chacne that they might hit friendly forces is proportiantely higher.

China may have more men, but their ability to feed, clothe, equip, trian, and arm these men is seriously hampered. They barely have enough boots for their peacetime army, let alone rifles. And how would those soldiers get across the Pacific, in the face of the US Navy, swim?

exactly. The fact is, the French have never won a single major campaign since before the start of documented history.
Sorry? WWI?

exactly. The fact is, the French have never won a single major campaign since before the start of documented history.

I'll contain myself from responding to this argument, since it is way OT, if you would care to go into French history please post in the "Those Evil French" thread, which is already OT enough that we might as well start talking about Bozo the clown being better than Barney the Dinosaur. Or start your own topic, in which case I would be happy to correct you.

How many friendly fire deaths have there been in the last two decades, these things happen in war (and even not in war sometimes). Do you think other nations have not fired on their own troops or allies troops before? During Operation Goodwood (The British breakout from the beach head to Caen, the one that worked), USAAF and RAF bombers called in for air support dropped a large amount of ordnance on friendly troops killing around 100, during Operation Cobra (The American breakout to Brittany), the same bombers tallied up 125 Amercans killed. The majority of friendly fire killings being done by American forces today probably has something to do with US Air Force and Navy aircraft doing most of the bombing, therefore the chacne that they might hit friendly forces is proportiantely higher.

China may have more men, but their ability to feed, clothe, equip, trian, and arm these men is seriously hampered. They barely have enough boots for their peacetime army, let alone rifles. And how would those soldiers get across the Pacific, in the face of the US Navy, swim?

No, idiot, they'd walk across the ocean floor like in Pirates of the Caribbean.

a war cannot be won by a few good men.

Al of Germany's victories in 1940 were the result of Guderians work, France's victories in the early 19th century were realized by Napoleon. Alexander the Great is another example, Belisarius, Caesar, they all did it, without them it would have been impossible.

The reverse is true too - The US has no way to land and supply a large force on Mainland China, especially if Japan stays neutral.

the french did not win WW1, not by a long shot! At the start, germany came within a hair's breadth of taking paris, thanks to the french charging headlong at them and falling for a simple pincer movement.

yeah, the french were on the winning SIDE, but it was the british forces that joined them that first halted the germans advance (which led to the stalemate on the western front).

Arguably, the british werent much better (Haig, anyone?) But the French didnt win the war, in my opinion. They lost almost as many men as the Germans.

No, idiot, they'd walk across the ocean floor like in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Damn, that's dash cunning of them. I suppose we'll have to make good friends with France again then, since Johnny Depp lives in Lyon, we're gonna need him.

I think the whole of mankind would lose, with the nuclear winter following a nuclear war betwen China & the US. Naturally I am supporting the Chinese. They are better trade partners and didnt get a recent chance at ownage yet. Whichever party loses, the EU wins because it will be the only trade partner left. We can provide the food for China if needed :)

the french did not win WW1, not by a long shot! At the start, germany came within a hair's breadth of taking paris, thanks to the french charging headlong at them and falling for a simple pincer movement.

yeah, the french were on the winning SIDE, but it was the british forces that joined them that first halted the germans advance (which led to the stalemate on the western front).

Arguably, the british werent much better (Haig, anyone?) But the French didnt win the war, in my opinion. They lost almost as many men as the Germans.

Yes, the Great War, which was just beginning as the first of the Chinese People's Armies flooded across to Taiwan and were met by the US Pacific Fleets...... wait a second... something seems wrong here.

Ok, i bet everyone who said china said that because they have 2 million man army and some nukes.

#1 Chinas army is mostly Conscripts! They suck.

#2 the U.S. has more nukes, so the U.S. would win there.

#3 Chinas nay could probably go as far as Taiwan... then it would run out of gas.

#4 The U.S. has ALOT more allies, they would win with sheer numbers with their allies, not the Chinese.

#5 if the U.S. wanted it could raise an Army of 5,000,000 men, AND be able to supply it.

#6 Chinas having a hard enought iem with 2,000,000 men

#7 The U.S. Army is the most elite fightin group in the world. We never lost a war. (and we didnt lose Vietnam, we left because we declared peace with N. Vietnam. They only said we lost because the south was destroyed 2 years AFTER we left.) And against china we'd massacre them

#8. China would Starve. It relies so much on import food. And who cares if we lose all our cheap plastic toys. we can just get computers from Japan.

#9 When you look at the casualties for the ENEMIES in Iraq, you see it goes into the tens for thousands.

#10 the u.S. and China are too smart to go to War. Theres too much at stake.

#11 The U.S has the largest Navy and Airforce in the world, and we have over 40,000 troopes stationed in U.S. bases in Japan. We also have alot of naval bases too.

I'll contain myself from responding to this argument, since it is way OT, if you would care to go into French history please post in the "Those Evil French" thread, which is already OT enough that we might as well start talking about Bozo the clown being better than Barney the Dinosaur. Or start your own topic, in which case I would be happy to correct you.

WTF?? There is NO contest between Barney the dinosaur and Bozo the clown. Barney would win every time.

the french did not win WW1, not by a long shot! At the start, germany came within a hair's breadth of taking paris, thanks to the french charging headlong at them and falling for a simple pincer movement.

yeah, the french were on the winning SIDE, but it was the british forces that joined them that first halted the germans advance (which led to the stalemate on the western front).

Arguably, the british werent much better (Haig, anyone?) But the French didnt win the war, in my opinion. They lost almost as many men as the Germans.
Uh, yeah they did. Britain would have lost without the French, and the French would have lost without the british. You don't have to lose less people to win a war (I.E. the USSR against Nazi Germany. Are you going to say that the Russians lost because the Germans came within a hair's breadth of taking Moscow and the Russians lost more people?).

the french did not win WW1, not by a long shot! At the start, germany came within a hair's breadth of taking paris, thanks to the french charging headlong at them and falling for a simple pincer movement.

yeah, the french were on the winning SIDE, but it was the british forces that joined them that first halted the germans advance (which led to the stalemate on the western front).

Arguably, the british werent much better (Haig, anyone?) But the French didnt win the war, in my opinion. They lost almost as many men as the Germans.

They did win the war ... but not alone. They were represented as winners at that railcar in Compiegne together with the British, Belgians and Americans. France suffered heavely under this war as it was fought on their soil. they also contributed most troops to the conflict.

Al of Germany's victories in 1940 were the result of Guderians work, France's victories in the early 19th century were realized by Napoleon. Alexander the Great is another example, Belisarius, Caesar, they all did it, without them it would have been impossible.
Actually Fall Gelb, the invasion in the West, was von Mansteins plan.

WTF?? There is NO contest between Barney the dinosaur and Bozo the clown. Barney would win every time.

lol. Your both Wrong. The tellitubbies would win, no sweat.

#2 the U.S. has more nukes, so the U.S. would win there.

The difference of a few hundred or even a few thousand nukes is irrelevant when you're talking about the number of nukes that both nations would be able to use.

lol. Your both Wrong. The tellitubbies would win, no sweat.

Er. No one even mentioned the tellitubbies! you're going OT.

(good point though...tinkywinky could take them all on singlehandedly)

Actually Fall Gelb, the invasion in the West, was von Mansteins plan.

No, actaully it was Von Rundstedts plan which was slightly altered by von Mannstein to let the Panzers go through the Ardennes. But it would have failed without Guderians Blitzkrieg theory (and his leadership as general of the advancing column)

The difference of a few hundred or even a few thousand nukes is irrelevant when you're talking about the number of nukes that both nations would be able to use.

Thats right. But in terms of numbers, the U.S. Still has more

P.S. By the way, your Location thing about Mass being the best, its absolutley TRUE!

To be honest, The Sword and Sheild, i'm pretty sure everyone was going OT by page 2. :)

Ok, I love historical debate as much as anyone but this has nothing to do with China and the US in a war, and since no one else would, I have created a thread just for that, please continue your debates there.

No, actaully it was Von Rundstedts plan which was slightly altered by von Mannstein to let the Panzers go through the Ardennes. But it would have failed without Guderians Blitzkrieg theory (and his leadership as general of the advancing column)
Every source I looked at names von Manstein as the one working out the strategy. Von Rundstedt is mentioned as commander of Army group A.

Thats right. But in terms of numbers, the U.S. Still has more

P.S. By the way, your Location thing about Mass being the best, its absolutley TRUE!

Yes, technically we have more nuclear weapons than China, but it doesn't really matter. It's not like if it comes to nuclear war that our extra nukes are going to give us a decisive tactical advantage. By the time that China would run out of nukes and our extra ones would give us the heads up, the world would be a smoldering ruin anyway.

Massachusetts is indeed the best. Not nearly enough people realize.

In fact, I'll even give you the address http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344102

hehehe. sorry, i guess i'm partly to blame ;)

In fact, I'll even give you the address http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344102

Poor TSAS. You try so hard.

Every source I looked at names von Manstein as the one working out the strategy. Von Rundstedt is mentioned as commander of Army group A.

You should be hanged!

It originally made by von Rundstedt, he wanted to us the old Sichelschnitt idea, but Von Mannstein preffered an attack through the ardennes (into Coraps weak 9th), Hitler liked the idea to much that he altered the plan to incorporate von Mannsteins tactic.
the Sichelschnitt strategy remained, but most panzers were sent to break throught the ardennes

#2 the U.S. has more nukes, so the U.S. would win there.

This is irrelevent. It only takes one or two to destroy a nation. Yes, the Americans have enough to blow up the world 6 times..maybe even more now. That is quite irrelevent. As for the rest of your argument.. eh, I think neither side would really "win" to be honest.

You should be hanged!

It originally made by von Rundstedt, he wanted to us the old Sichelschnitt idea, but Von Mannstein preffered an attack through the ardennes (into Coraps weak 9th), Hitler liked the idea to much that he altered the plan to incorporate von Mannsteins tactic.
the Sichelschnitt strategy remained, but most panzers were sent to break throught the ardennes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfranceI.htm

Now lets see your source.

This is irrelevent. It only takes one or two to destroy a nation. Yes, the Americans have enough to blow up the world 6 times..maybe even more now. That is quite irrelevent. As for the rest of your argument.. eh, I think neither side would really "win" to be honest.

Neener neener, I said that already.

Neener neener, I said that already.

Oh, well, then I can only come to one of two conclusions..

1) Great minds think a like..

OR

2) Fools seldom differ..

hahaha, I'm going for #1.. :D

Oh, well, then I can only come to one of two conclusions..

1) Great minds think a like..

OR

2) Fools seldom differ..

hahaha, I'm going for #1.. :D

It's probably better that we just assume #1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfranceI.htm

Now lets see your source.

I only use books, in this case i'll go for a site then.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

En vermits je toch Nederlands spreekt en niemand er verder in geinterreseerd is kan ik beter zo verdergaan.
Zoals je ziet vermeldt de site duidelijk dat het oude sickelplan in gebruik bleef terwijl men de tanks via de Belgische ardennen zond op aanraden van Mansteinn.

I only use books, in this case i'll go for a site then.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

En vermits je toch Nederlands spreekt en niemand er verder in geinterreseerd is kan ik beter zo verdergaan.
Zoals je ziet vermeldt de site duidelijk dat het oude sickelplan in gebruik bleef terwijl men de tanks via de Belgische ardennen zond op aanraden van Mansteinn.
Dat zie ik. Maar hoe kom je dan op von Rundstedt?

Simpel, omdat Von Rundstedt op het idee kwam om het Sickelplan te hergebruiken. Er waren zeer weinig officieren die dat plan goed vonden en Von Mannsteins idee vonden ze zelfs nog gekker.

Simpel, omdat Von Rundstedt op het idee kwam om het Sickelplan te hergebruiken. Er waren zeer weinig officieren die dat plan goed vonden en Von Mannsteins idee vonden ze zelfs nog gekker.
En waar staat dat? Zelfs jou link spreekt niet over Rundstedt.

Nee, dat kan ik alleen bewijzen via boeken. Dus daarin zul je me gewoon moeten geloven vrees ik(of ni geloven dat is uw keuze).

I say the US because, even of China's beastly population, strategy and more advanced weaponry will beat shear man-power. That is how we beat Japan and Germany, that is how we (theoretically) could beat the Chinese. Remember, after Pearl Harbor, the US was caught in a war with Germany, Japan, and the rest of the Axis powers with the 16th largest army in the world. And we got our fat butts off the ground, and kicked some Teutonic and Nipponese ass. We won the war with air-power. I think we could do the same against china, without the use of nuclear power.

Just my opinion.

*grunt*
*Trying to tug this thread back to the topic*
its so seldom that i know anything about these war topics

we would do everything possible to avoid a nuclear war
there are only a very few spots of contention between the US and china
we are to far apart for serious conflicts
so its TAIWAN or nothing
these days, i dont see that we care much about taiwan. not as much as the chinese can work themselves up to if they give it a good try.
so
if they really want taiwan enough to go to war
they win
if they were quick enough, they could get it done before we could get an executive order to get a warship close enough to fight them off.

*grunt*
*Trying to tug this thread back to the topic*
its so seldom that i know anything about these war topics

we would do everything possible to avoid a nuclear war
there are only a very few spots of contention between the US and china
we are to far apart for serious conflicts
so its TAIWAN or nothing
these days, i dont see that we care much about taiwan. not as much as the chinese can work themselves up to if they give it a good try.
so
if they really want taiwan enough to go to war
they win
if they were quick enough, they could get it done before we could get an executive order to get a warship close enough to fight them off.

Are you kidding? That strait is one of the most heavily patrolled waterways in the world. We've always got at least a battleship group within a couple of hours from there.

If it goes to nukes, nasty statemate.

Conventional war; well, neither side could concievably hold onto each others land for very long. Another stalemate.

No nukes wouldn't be a stalemate. China has somewhere around 800, the US has 10000+.

No nukes wouldn't be a stalemate. China has somewhere around 800, the US has 10000+.

One or two are enough to destroy a nation.

There wouldn't be war between China and the U.S.

If the US did us air power against China, the collateral damage on civilians would be absolutely massive, probably causing an international backlash against the US. my opinion

One or two are enough to destroy a nation.
A small nation. A few hundred could destroy a nation like China and the US, just drop them on population centers...

Today's nuclear weapons are much stronger then the ones used in '45. the effect of one or two nukes today would be disastrous for the targetted nation, even if that nation is China/the US.

Who would win in a war? China or the US
Why the hell are you asking this ridiculous question?

I'll vote for France, the greatest country on earth, just to annoy your neo-con ass.

#7 The U.S. Army is the most elite fightin group in the world. We never lost a war. (and we didnt lose Vietnam, we left because we declared peace with N. Vietnam. They only said we lost because the south was destroyed 2 years AFTER we left.) And against china we'd massacre them

In Vietnam we (U.S.A.) lost militarily. But in the political side of it we won. I forget how though.

Well, when you think about it, the U.S> and China will never go to war. The msot likely situation is that TAiwan wil declare indepence, the Chinese will launch some (un-nuclear) Missiles at them, and destroy the American Naval Guards. Then the Americans will bomb their Missile installations and destroy their Navy int eh Taiwan Area. Then both sides will realize the other is serious, and they'll try to negotiate. If there Ever was a clash between the U.S. ARmy and the Chinese, it would be on Taiwan. it would be Just liek the Korean War, The Chinese would invade Taiwan, the U.S. and the U.N. would go and send troops to defend it, and then thered be about a year or 2 of fightning, 40,000 people will die, and China and the U.N. will Negotiate a peace deal.

The U.S., easily.

I think Azerbijian would win any day.

I think everyone would lose if the US and China ever went to war against each other. Other nations would have to get involved, some more so than others of course. And eventually it would likely throw the whole world economy out of whack (especially if it went nuclear).

And eventually it would likely throw the whole world economy out of whack (especially if it went nuclear).

If it went nuclear I doubt the economy would be the biggest concern of the day.

Right now the US would destroy China. China lacks the capability to launch a full scale nuvlear attack on the US, they have maybe a handful of missiles with the capability to reach the US mainland, more likely our territories and overseas bases would be the targets of a nuclear attack. China also lacks the ability to hit the US with conventional weapons.

The US may not "win" but they will come out better off than the Chinese, since we can atleast hit them.

Read Tom Clancy's SSN, it is a good insight into what would most likely happen in an all out war between the US and China, but it is told from the point of view of a Submarine Captain, so it will concentrate on the Naval War.

Well, when you think about it, the U.S> and China will never go to war. The msot likely situation is that TAiwan wil declare indepence, the Chinese will launch some (un-nuclear) Missiles at them, and destroy the American Naval Guards. Then the Americans will bomb their Missile installations and destroy their Navy int eh Taiwan Area. Then both sides will realize the other is serious, and they'll try to negotiate. If there Ever was a clash between the U.S. ARmy and the Chinese, it would be on Taiwan. it would be Just liek the Korean War, The Chinese would invade Taiwan, the U.S. and the U.N. would go and send troops to defend it, and then thered be about a year or 2 of fightning, 40,000 people will die, and China and the U.N. will Negotiate a peace deal.

But if China did invade they would likely over run Taiwan completely, the North Koreans were unable to do this during the Korean War, remember, China invaded North Korea to force the UN forces out of the area because they felt threatened by the Americans so close. And with MacArthur calling for an invasion of China this may have been well founded, but then again Patton also wanted to keep going through Germany, Poland, and into Russia, so who knows what would have happened if China had never joined the Korean War.

Even though i'm Chinese,I think that America would win,because the American troops are more highly trained and better equpped than the Chinese forces,Plus,the American Military is not too much smaller that the Chinese,America currently has about 3.5 million troops in total(Active,reserve),and the US Air Force would destroy the Chinese Air Forces with the F-15s,and F/A-18Es vs.the old A-6s and the J-8IIs of the Chinese Air Forces,America could also thin the numbers with an air campaign,America would dominate in the nuclear and naval fields,because the Chinese navy is nothing compared to the US's--I also have to mention that the US Navy and Air Forces are the world's largest,and China is nuclear capable,but most of their missles have a range of only hundreds of miles,another thing,America surely wouldnt go to war with China alone--

In Vietnam we (U.S.A.) lost militarily. But in the political side of it we won. I forget how though.

Reverse that, we were on the verge of a military victory, we lost the political war at home.

I didnt count nukes.
Because well, China has enough Nukes to ensure we wouldnt win, now they wouldnt win a nuke war either.
So that goes to straightup war, China whoops us up and down if it is fought in Asia, and we whoop them up and down if they TRIED to come here..

If China invaded the US, we'd win. If we invaded China, China would win. The defender in either scenario has the advantage. You know millions would take to the streets with rifles in either country, and fighting millions of people is near impossible.

Today's nuclear weapons are much stronger then the ones used in '45. the effect of one or two nukes today would be disastrous for the targetted nation, even if that nation is China/the US.

Yes, they are much more effective, but they are still only City Killers. One or two nukes could barely destroy Ireland, much less the US or China. A nuke dropped on the Eastern Seaboard would be disastrous for the US, but it would not be able to take out New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston with one bomb.

If China invaded the US, we'd win. If we invaded China, China would win. The defender in either scenario has the advantage. You know millions would take to the streets with rifles in either country, and fighting millions of people is near impossible.

But the US would do much better in China that China would do in the US.

Let's not forget, China has over 1 Billion people, but how many of them own or even know how to use a gun?

The US has a population of 280 Million, but a very large percentage know how to use a gun. So if China invades us they face a militia that did not have to be trained in how to use guns, saving time, if we invade they have to atleast be given a crash course in how to use a weapon, meaning that gives our troops more time to move inland and kill or capture more Chinese troops.

But the US would do much better in China that China would do in the US.

Let's not forget, China has over 1 Billion people, but how many of them own or even know how to use a gun?

The US has a population of 280 Million, but a very large percentage know how to use a gun. So if China invades us they face a militia that did not have to be trained in how to use guns, saving time, if we invade they have to atleast be given a crash course in how to use a weapon, meaning that gives our troops more time to move inland and kill or capture more Chinese troops.
Point. Pull trigger. Repeat until out of ammo. Reload weapon. Repeat until out of clips.

Done. Go and kill some facist invaders now.

If China invaded the US, we'd win. If we invaded China, China would win. The defender in either scenario has the advantage. You know millions would take to the streets with rifles in either country, and fighting millions of people is near impossible.

Then again, if the Chinese invaded the West Coast, hitting Oregon the hardest, there would be little resistance from the populace. Oregon has fewer guns per person than any other state in the union. Not hard to take out a few cities full of hippies.

Then again, if the Chinese invaded the West Coast, hitting Oregon the hardest, there would be little resistance from the populace. Oregon has fewer guns per person than any other state in the union. Not hard to take out a few cities full of hippies.

The US Navy wouldn't let them cross the pacific, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to keep their troops supplied.

I say the US because, even of China's beastly population, strategy and more advanced weaponry will beat shear man-power. That is how we beat Japan and Germany, that is how we (theoretically) could beat the Chinese. Remember, after Pearl Harbor, the US was caught in a war with Germany, Japan, and the rest of the Axis powers with the 16th largest army in the world. And we got our fat butts off the ground, and kicked some Teutonic and Nipponese ass. We won the war with air-power. I think we could do the same against china, without the use of nuclear power.

Just my opinion.


HAHAHAHA,

Germany Per person was way more Advanced then the USA and any other Nation from about 1935-6 onwards It was only after the Germans Defeat did they lost this Per Person Advantage over the Rest of the World, Technology helps win a war but you need the Troops as well, Just because they Have less money doesn't mean they can’t field there Armies of such size, China is 4 times Larger then the USA but has 3/5 the GDP of the USA, China has the ability to defend its homeland but once you start leaving China itself the Chinese don't have the Naval or Air Capacity.

You must Remember again that the Chinese have one of the Largest Submarine Fleets in the World these days.

Any invasion of the Mainland of each nation would be Devastating for the Invader.

It is clear history that the USA public would jump up and down if they went to war with China because China has the ability to send a lot of US Body bags home, The US public doesn't like bloody war's.

The US would win, but I'd hope they would play it smart. An all out invasion would not work. If we boxed them in and bombed the crap out of them, the US could win, but it would need to be done slowly and over time. When the Mongols invaded China, they waited well over 100 years to fully conquer China. Obviously we could do it faster, but hopefully a prolonged seige would be opted for. Cutting off their access to the outside world and bombing them immensly would eventually lead to starvation and rebellion within the Chinese ranks.

What´s the point of the war? Most people seem to be assuming that the war would be a war of conquest, that you would have to occupy the other nation in order to win. Many wars just aren't like that. For example, the war against Serbia did not include any ground troops from USA, but you could say that USA won the war, because USA acchieved its objective for the war. Merely beating the other nation´s army into submission can´t be considered winning. A probable cause for a war would probably be over Taiwan, which USA would be hard-pressed to win and reluctant to fight anyway. If USA started bombing China and trying to starve the populace in order to cause an uprising against the government, I´d think USA would probably in the end "lose". Everyone would hate the USA after a while, especially if the aerial campaign was a success. India and Russia would probably end up supplying China with food, which USA would be unable to stop. Even if the Chinese rose up against the government, a new government might not be any more pro-American than the one fighting the war.

I voted France because a war between the wrold's largest army ant the world's most advanced army would surely lead into the use of Nuclear weapons by both sides, erasing all citizens of both nations from the face of the earth forever. Meanwhile, France would be suffering from radiation posoning along with the rest of the wrold, but they'd be living it up other than that because they'd be the only country smart enough to stay out of it.

Just remember, if we want to starve China we would first have to take Manchuria, you can not starve China with a blockade, you need to get in there and cut off their food from teh inside.

Who wins? We all lose.

USA would win. Both russian and india are friendlier with the US than with china. Indias even had several conflicts with them.
Also the USA can nuke everypart of china, while i don't even know if chinese can reach the east coast of america.

Just remember, if we want to starve China we would first have to take Manchuria, you can not starve China with a blockade, you need to get in there and cut off their food from teh inside.
Uh...they grow food everywhere in China...not just Manchuria...

I say the US because, even of China's beastly population, strategy and more advanced weaponry will beat shear man-power. That is how we beat Japan and Germany, that is how we (theoretically) could beat the Chinese. Remember, after Pearl Harbor, the US was caught in a war with Germany, Japan, and the rest of the Axis powers with the 16th largest army in the world. And we got our fat butts off the ground, and kicked some Teutonic and Nipponese ass. We won the war with air-power. I think we could do the same against china, without the use of nuclear power.

Just my opinion.

You AND the allies. What's all this WE. You guys did not do it alone did you?
You guys did kick nippones butt, but the teutonics held their own against you. thanks god for all the allies

Uh...they grow food everywhere in China...not just Manchuria...

Really, no way, I did not know that, dumbass. But we also frow food in Arizona, does that mean that if the entire midwest, where we get most of our grain, was captured or nuked that Arizona could feed themselves? Manchuria has much more fertile soil than the rest of China, good luck growing large amounts of food in western China or the Himalayas.

China can support such a large population thanks to Manchuria, India can not support as many people sa they have, yet China is the one taking steps to reduce the population while India relies on infanticide, killing the babies, most specifically the female babies, and Indian women are often beaten for giving birth to daughters, kind of odd when you consider that it is the man that is responsible for the sex of the child.

Dude didnt you know that asians can fly?? They would so win. Plus dont they have mechs?? Smaller people are more agile, they could dodge our bullets.



We are very simple people with very small penis-asians on southpark

You AND the allies. What's all this WE. You guys did not do it alone did you?
You guys did kick nippones butt, but the teutonics held their own against you. thanks god for all the allies

WE generally means allies when an American, British, Russian, and even French talk about WWII. Of course their were many more nations inbolbed but those the were the big 4 allies. When I say we referring to the war in the pacific however it does refer to the US, only the US, since that was for a majority of the war a slugfest between the US (more specifically the Navy and Marines) and Japan, Europe was bogged down with Germany, North Africa, and the Russian steppe.

This was the three most powerful nations in Japan's eyes when they attacked at Pearl Harbor:

1. Japan
2. Germany
3. United States

That may have been true at the time but they greatly underestimated our will power and industrial might.

In modern history we were sudying about the Renaissance, I remember reading that one philosphere thought that war was natural, as a check to the excess population on the planet. IF there is a war between China and the US it will probably make quite a dent in the world population, perhaps that person who wrote that was right, since for most of history about every 20 years there was another war. Up till WWII, that probably finally convinced people that the cost of human life was to great and that their were other ways to control the population.

Right now if their was a war, the US would come out better off than China, notice I did not say win, because they can do little to hit our mainland, they can use terrorist tactics as 9/11 proved, but if we did go to war I don't think the FAA would allow frequent travel, and we would probably have increased security at all the airports, making that much harder. All we need to do is whether the initial attack, probably on Taiwan, then we can basically destroy the Chinese Navy with all of their noisy mini-subs, blockade China, cutting off their oil, and wait till they run out of oil, their tanks will no longer be able to fight, their massive and obsolete air force will sit unused in hangars, and what is left of their Navy will be sitting in port. Then we can just launch missile after missile, plane after plane, eventually we would be able to invade with little resistance, since the troops will have to walk everywhere like in WWII they will be more tired and lesser equipped.

Short term China with a but long term US with an if.

Really, no way, I did not know that, dumbass. But we also frow food in Arizona, does that mean that if the entire midwest, where we get most of our grain, was captured or nuked that Arizona could feed themselves? Manchuria has much more fertile soil than the rest of China, good luck growing large amounts of food in western China or the Himalayas. China can support such a large population thanks to Manchuria, India can not support as many people sa they have, yet China is the one taking steps to reduce the population while India relies on infanticide, killing the babies, most specifically the female babies, and Indian women are often beaten for giving birth to daughters, kind of odd when you consider that it is the man that is responsible for the sex of the child.
Uh Manchuria is not the leading agricultural area of China; it's too cold... the areas along the Yangtze river in south central China, especially the province of Sichuan is the best farmland in China. Also China's one-child policy and other population control is not as effective as you may think... in rural China, where there is less enforcement of population law than in the cities, families frequently have many children and the killing of female babies is unfortunately also very widespread in China.

Do you know that china, although in the possesion of many short-range nuclear missiles, probably due to it's foreign policy as mostly a regional leader, and not a world-power, has only around 20 long range ICBM's, as an anti-ballistic missile soldier of the US army, or ex I should say, just recently, trust me, we could take out their nukes w/ our AEGIS based patriot missiles, and since they do not keep their missiles in a ready to fire possition, unlike the US, one quick suprise attack w/ a few nuclear warheads at the right spots would take out their arsenal, so, we could devistate them, but as far as occupation, or actual land combat, at sea and air it's not even close, that would be impossible, containment maybe, but I don't think anyone would be able to actually occupy either China, or the US....

France :mp5:

It depends about where the war was fought. The US is the strongest air and sea power the world has ever seen, while China has relatively few planes and ships. However, the Chinese army has more potential to win a land war in Asia due to numbers, and that they are somewhat more advanced than most militaries. I'd have to say, however, that the US would win. In fact, it might be possible to destroy an army purely by air and sea power, as Israel did to Egypt in the Six Days War. It's no longer the conflict between the whale and the elephant, where they are both strong, but can't fight eachother. The elephant is still powerless to defeat the whale, but the whale has cruise missiles that can defeat the elephant.

Uh Manchuria is not the leading agricultural area of China; it's too cold... the areas along the Yangtze river in south central China, especially the province of Sichuan is the best farmland in China. Also China's one-child policy and other population control is not as effective as you may think... in rural China, where there is less enforcement of population law than in the cities, families frequently have many children and the killing of female babies is unfortunately also very widespread in China.
Bullshit, they dont really kill babies just because they are girls in China!
I would very much appreciate a reliable source to confirm the spreading of such a sick stereo-type.
I dont mean to call you a liar Antebellum but I know soo many Chinese and people who frequent China and I find very hard to believe that while I was there and with all my friends and family no one has ever mentioned the "widespread" murder of female babies.
I left the upper part of my post, because it was an honest reaction.
I however have done some polking around, and I do stand at least partially corrected, the incidence of this murder of female babies has been on a steady decline since the The birth of Peoples Republic, however the WTO screw it here is the link check focus 2 http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

They site their own resources.
I must say I am amazed.

I tried this once on C and C Generals Zero Hour. It was an eight on eight battle with all the generals, and the two originals. Laser went out first, Nuke second, Super weapon third, Regular U.S. then Air force. China won 3 to 0.
But seriously, China isn't afraid of anything. They have millions of people and Nukes. The U.S. is way more afraid.

I tried this once on C and C Generals Zero Hour. It was an eight on eight battle with all the generals, and the two originals. Laser went out first, Nuke second, Super weapon third, Regular U.S. then Air force. China won 3 to 0.
But seriously, China isn't afraid of anything. They have millions of people and Nukes. The U.S. is way more afraid.

Sure, let's use a video game to determine who'd win.

Point. Pull trigger. Repeat until out of ammo. Reload weapon. Repeat until out of clips.

Done. Go and kill some facist invaders now.

You havn't used a gun before, have you? Sure, what you described will get the bullet out of the gun, but you won't hit professional soldiers (or even conscripts) if all you know about a weapon is that.

the americans have the superior weapons, money, and equiptment but we also have a people who think that a 0.5% casualty rate is extraordinarily high ( iraq) so i think america could win exept that the more weak minded and "soft" among its people would eventualy cave in from weakness thereby hindering the effort somewhat.

It all depends on the scenario. Here are some possiblities (including the wild ones), in order of assumed likelyhood:
1) Taiwan declares independence, PRC attacks, US comes to Taiwan's aid.
2) China attacks Russia over Siberia or Manchuria. The US intervenes.
3) China attacks India. The US intervenes.
4) An accidental "release" of strategic weapons leads to an exchange.
5a) The US launches a pre-emptive attack based on intelligence (real or faulty) that the PRC preparing an attack on the US or Taiwan.
5b) The PRC launches a pre-emptive attack based on intelligence (real or faulty) that the US preparing an attack.
6a) US decides to implement regime change in the PRC.
6b) The PRC decides to implement regime change in the US.
7a) An imperial US invades the PRC aiming to either take it or to force it into submission.
7b) An imperial PRC invades the US aiming to either take it or to force it into submission.

(an interesting set of scenarios: http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/alternatescenarios.html)

Now, a few facts and figures:

Strategic Forces Comparison:
The PRC:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm#China
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/chnukes.html
http://www.sinodefence.com/nuclear/icbm/
http://www.softwar.net/dongfeng.html

Julang 1 SLBMs* - 16*
Dong Feng 3A ICBMs** - 40
Dong Feng 4 ICBMs** - 20
Dong Feng 5 ICBMs - 20
Dong Feng 21A ICBMs** - 40
Dong Feng 31 ICBMs*** - 12
Hong-6 Bombers** - 100

* The submarine carrying these may not be operational.
** Do not hgave the range to strike the continental US
*** Estimated numbers

The US:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/usnukes.html
Minuteman III ICBMs - 530
Peacekeeper ICBMs- 50
Trident I SLBMs - 192
Trident II SLBMs - 216
Tomahawk TLAM-N SLCMs - 350
B-52H Stratofortress Bombers - 66
B-1B Lancer Bombers - 95
B-2A Spirit Bombers - 12

Conventional Air, naval, and Land Forces comparisons:
http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

And now how the scenarios play out (looking at them purely militarily):
1) The US, having superior naval and air power, combined with technological advantages, defeats the PRC.
2 and 3) The best result is a Korea like stalemate and defacto division. Worst case is escalation into multual destruction.
4, 5b, 6 a and b, and 7 a and b) These would result in stalemates if conventional and mutual destruction if nuclear.
5a) The best possibility is that the US achieves total surprise and destroys all strategic forces before they can be launched. This is highly unlikely. The worst case is, again, mutual destruction. The likely case is destruction of most of the PRCs arsenal, with 3-5 missiles hitting the continental US. This would probably result in sever retaliatory strikes, doing sever damage to the PRC.

Conclusion: The US can win a limited local war. The US can win a nuclear war (assuming no outside intervention - a very large assumption) if it can hit the PRC's strategic forces first. All other scenarios result in either a stalemate or mutual destruction.

The government of Svala feels that countries with so-called "stabble" and "functional" governments are a dangerous abberation from the state of nature. We hereby declare that all functional governments with strong armies need to pound eachother into oblivion. Your cooperation in this mater is appreciated.



(And the Russians already did the calculations a long time ago... the U.S. unleashing its nukes would end humanity. SO in fact the martians would win (also known to some as the Swiss)

In the traditional warfare China has definate edge, even though their equipment is outdated. They have such amount of manpower that US won't stand a change. In fullscale nuclear warfare, neither would win. Both would be reduced to ashes with MASSIVE casualties and total collapse of the society.

In the traditional warfare China has definate edge, even though their equipment is outdated. They have such amount of manpower that US won't stand a change. In fullscale nuclear warfare, neither would win. Both would be reduced to ashes with MASSIVE casualties and total collapse of the society.

Traditional land warfare, and that is assuming it's only on the Chinese mainland, since China can't project it's power really anywhere else. And their equipment isn't just outdated, they don't have enough of it, China can only defend itself, it's offensive capabilities in Asia are limited, and it cannot project power beyond the ocean in the face of the US.

I have studied and researched this topic as a piece of my research for my technomilitary-thriller.

Just a note, China officially does not have a Navy. It is officially the naval branch of the People's Liberation Army. Maybe some day it'd be officially a navy. But for the sake of simplicity we'd use the term 'Navy' anyways.

If you want a near-balance (slightly pro-US) review on the state of the PLAN (People's Liberation Army-Navy).

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/chinas_navy_today.htm

Who 'wins' a war must be clearly defined to answer this question. Specific goals, objectives and/or aims must be made. A lack of a clear objective undoubtedly was a contributing factor to the United States losing the Vietnam War (eg. since no goals were stated, nobody knew how to implement military action to achieve anything).

So, the only right answer IMO is "Need more information. What do you mean win?"

JiangGuo

Read Tom Clancy's SSN, it is a good insight into what would most likely happen in an all out war between the US and China, but it is told from the point of view of a Submarine Captain, so it will concentrate on the Naval War.

That book is a joke. Its this hastily-written accompanyment to the video game they tried to launch and had only Clancy's paid-for endorsement, I'm sure he regretted doing that afterwards.

JiangGuo

The PLA has a 2 to 1 advantage over the USArmy in manpower. This is the only advantage they have.

The USA has a 3 to 1 andvantage in numbers of AFVs over the PLA. This advantage is multipled when you consider the technology involved.

The USAF and the PLAAF have approximate parity in numbers of combat aircraft, however the USAF has a very significant edge in technology and training. Remember that the PLAAF primarily uses Soviet designs from the 1950s and 1960s.

The PLA Navy is totally outmatched by the US - no carriers at all and small numbers of other ships. And, once again, the technology is significantly inferior.

The US has many other advantages. The PLA's C4ISR capacity is far behind that of the US. The US armed forces are significantly better trained and lead.
And I dealt with the PLA's inferiority in strategic forces above.

The only way in which the PLA's numerical manpower superiority really comes into play is if the US tries to take and hold the mainland as a strategic goal. And that manpower superiority is neutralized by the other advantages I have just listed. As I said above, converntional war scenarios result in either the US winning a short limited conflict or a prolonged stalemate.

Todays wars are fought with forward deployment.
That means Air Craft Carriers.

China doesnt have any of those.

We have a bunch.

The important thing would be that the U.S would never invade by land.
China has like a million people in its infantry alone. (something like that.)
Attacking China by land would be suicide.

However, China doesnt have anywhere near the technology that the U.S has.
No Navy...and that means no air superiority.

Neither side wants anything to do with fighting the other.

I have studied and researched this topic as a piece of my research for my technomilitary-thriller.

Just a note, China officially does not have a Navy. It is officially the naval branch of the People's Liberation Army. Maybe some day it'd be officially a navy. But for the sake of simplicity we'd use the term 'Navy' anyways.

If you want a near-balance (slightly pro-US) review on the state of the PLAN (People's Liberation Army-Navy).

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/chinas_navy_today.htm

Who 'wins' a war must be clearly defined to answer this question. Specific goals, objectives and/or aims must be made. A lack of a clear objective undoubtedly was a contributing factor to the United States losing the Vietnam War (eg. since no goals were stated, nobody knew how to implement military action to achieve anything).

So, the only right answer IMO is "Need more information. What do you mean win?"

JiangGuo


Bingo! We have a winner.

China has like a million people in its infantry alone. (something like that.)

sinodefence.com says:
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is the world’s largest armed force with a total strength of 2.5 million men and women serving in four arms—ground forces, air force, navy, and strategic missile force. The ground forces along total some 2 million troops and support personnel, or 80% of the PLA’s total manpower. This force also deploys 8,000 tanks, 4,000 armoured vehicles, and 25,000 artillery guns and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs). In time of crisis, this force can be reinforced by a large reserve-militia force numbering more than 1.5 million personnel and the one-million-man People's Armed Police (PAP).

Infantry: The infantry is the oldest element in the ground forces. Currently the infantry in the PLA are mainly of two types: motorised/mechanised infantry and armoured infantry. The motorised/mechanised infantry are mobilised by motor vehicles and wheeled or track armoured vehicles. The armoured infantry are carried by armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) to accomplish tank troops.

The largest independent infantry formation is division. Currently the main forces of the PLA regular ground forces has 28 motorised/mechanised infantry divisions and 22 motorised/mechanised infantry brigades. The local forces has 8 motorised infantry divisions (including garrison divisions), 5 motorised infantry brigades, and some unknown number of independent infantry regiments. Each armour division in the PLA has an armoured infantry regiment.

The infantry divisions are approximately 20,000 men strong. That gives us right about 1 million.

No Navy...and that means no air superiority.

No navy means no air superiority? While I agree they wouldn't get air superiority, it won't be because they have no navy.... ;)

sinodefence.com says:




The infantry divisions are approximately 20,000 men strong. That gives us right about 1 million.



No navy means no air superiority? While I agree they wouldn't get air superiority, it won't be because they have no navy.... ;)


Sure it would.

The American Navy has more fighter planes than the air force.
Why?
Becuase Air Bases are stationary targets subject to attack.

A Carrier is mobile and can attack a land target hundreds of miles away.

Forward Deployment baby....

Depends.

If it goes to Nukes. The US. Well sorta

Problem is the world would suffer from the exchange.

China isn't going to be invading too much anytime soon. They want economics and they are getting it.....
China will attack Australia, probably in the next decade.
Why? because their population is over a billion and they are running out of space in their congested country. Their Communist dictator has shown himself to be very militarily aggresive in taiwan and he like some 'wacko' asians see Australia as 'Asian' territory, just like the Japanese did in World War 2. They see Australia as a weak nation militarily, a population of only 20 million isn't going to do much stop an estimated chinese army of 200 million conscripts. Also with USA probably busy with North Korea at the time and the UK's declining miltary strength, there isnt much anyone can do to stop them because the UN is full of useless pen pushers only interested in bureaucracy. God bless Australia, i hope this doesn't happen, but i cant see how it wont. All the signs indicate it will. There is even a quote in the bible about it...

Bullshit, they dont really kill babies just because they are girls in China!
I would very much appreciate a reliable source to confirm the spreading of such a sick stereo-type.
I dont mean to call you a liar Antebellum but I know soo many Chinese and people who frequent China and I find very hard to believe that while I was there and with all my friends and family no one has ever mentioned the "widespread" murder of female babies.
I am Chinese living in the US and I just got back from a month long trip to China... obviously the vast vast majority of Chinese don't kill babies and are disgusted at the idea... however there is a minority of people, especially in the rural areas of China, who will go to any lengths to get a son because male labor is worth more than female labor in the Chinese manual labor market. All Chinese know that female infanticide is a very unfortunate tradition in China that is common in the rural areas however in the cities (where you probably visited) people are much more educated and would not do such a barbaric thing... therefore Chinese city dwellers don't talk about it much because infanticide is getting less common in China as a whole and already virtually nonexistent in cities... however there is no doubt that all CHinese, rural or urban, know that infanticide happens in China. I also suspect a Chinese would hesistate to discuss this issue with a non-Chinese person because it is such a sad and shameful part of China.

Also I'm not trying to stereotype... when I say that infanticide is still too widespread in China that doesnt mean I am saying all Chinese are baby killers. Crime is relatively widespread in New York City, that doesn't mean all New Yorkers are criminals. When the truth is brought up about an issue such as infanticide one must confront the ugly reality and not automatically dismiss it as a 'stereotype.'

I left the upper part of my post, because it was an honest reaction.
I however have done some polking around, and I do stand at least partially corrected, the incidence of this murder of female babies has been on a steady decline since the The birth of Peoples Republic, however the WTO screw it here is the link check focus 2 http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

They site their own resources.
I must say I am amazed.
I applaud you for looking it up and confirming the facts... it is a good thing that the government is trying its best to eliminate the atrocious practice of female infanticide however there is still a prejudice against girl babies and infanticide is getting less popular but ultrasound is allowing parents to determine the gender of their fetus and thus abortions are becoming a common way of eliminating female fetuses before they are born... unfortunately the result of abortion and female infanticide is the same (and some may say that infanticide and abortion are equal but that is a different discussion for another time)- not enough girls born thus complicating the future marriage situation in China.

China will attack Australia, probably in the next decade.
Why? because their population is over a billion and they are running out of space in their congested country. Their Communist dictator has shown himself to be very militarily aggresive in taiwan and he like some 'wacko' asians see Australia as 'Asian' territory, just like the Japanese did in World War 2. They see Australia as a weak nation militarily, a population of only 20 million isn't going to do much stop an estimated chinese army of 200 million conscripts. Also with USA probably busy with North Korea at the time and the UK's declining miltary strength, there isnt much anyone can do to stop them because the UN is full of useless pen pushers only interested in bureaucracy. God bless Australia, i hope this doesn't happen, but i cant see how it wont. All the signs indicate it will. There is even a quote in the bible about it...
SO, what does everyone think about the probable Chinese invasion of Australia. Quite plausible, eh?

China will attack Australia, probably in the next decade.

Nope. No way. Certainly not within the next 10 years, and highly unlikely within the foreseeable future..

Why? because their population is over a billion and they are running out of space in their congested country. Their Communist dictator has shown himself to be very militarily aggresive in taiwan and he like some 'wacko' asians see Australia as 'Asian' territory, just like the Japanese did in World War 2. They see Australia as a weak nation militarily ...

The PRC is nowhere near running out of space. India, with a similary sized population (set to overtake China as the largest in the world in 30-50 years), has a much greater population density - more than twice the density of the PRC (densities are 319 and 134 respectively). You might note that the PRC has a population density roughly the same as the Czech Republic.

And if they do begin experiencing population pressures, Mongolia and Siberia are right on their doorstep. Siberia is resource rich. And both are equally as empty as Australia and either comparitively weak militarily or on thier way to being so.

The PRC is much more likely to be at war with Taiwan and the US, Russia, or India in the next 10 years. Those are nations with which China has long standing disputes. Australia really doesn't matter much to the PRC (except as a US ally).

And the currentleadership of the PRC could hardly be descriped as wackos. That's simply silly and disrespectful.

... a population of only 20 million isn't going to do much stop an estimated chinese army of 200 million conscripts.

There is absolutely no possible way the PLA could conscript 15% of the population. Period. About 50 million would be the most the PLA could reasonably expect to conscript. And the logistics of training and arming that many men would be such a significant drain on the economy that it could be sustained for long.
Furthermore, there is no possible way to transport any invasion force of that size. Look at the large scale amphibious invasions of WWII - Africa to Italy and UK to France. Operation Torch is the closest I can find in modern times to what you are proposing and that was 100 thousand men over 4000 miles of open ocean as opposed to even the modern sized PLA of 1.5 million men over a much greater distance. Moving that large of an invasion force would be a major logistical and intelligence nightmare. I'll point out that whether the PLAN has sufficient lift capacity to invade Taiwan is a major question. There is no way they could build up the naval forces required for an invasion of Australia in the next 10 years.

Also with USA probably busy with North Korea at the time and the UK's declining miltary strength, there isnt much anyone can do to stop them because the UN is full of useless pen pushers only interested in bureaucracy. God bless Australia, i hope this doesn't happen, but i cant see how it wont. All the signs indicate it will.

That assumes the DPRK will even be around in 10 years, much less a major problem for the US.

There is even a quote in the bible about it...

Can you honestly provide me with a Biblical chapter and verse clearly mentioning either Australia or the PRC.

if we have a war with the states we would destroy each other. :D

Nobody would win. China lacks the capacity to transport any appreciable number of troops safely to the USA. The USA lacks the ground forces to successfully conquer China. It may go nuclear in which case nobody wins bigtime!

if we have a war with the states we would destroy each other. :D

True, for larger values of war. ;)

(The original is a math joke: "1 +1 = 3, for larger values of 1".)

True, for larger values of war. ;)

(The original is a math joke: "1 +1 = 3, for larger values of 1".)

if we have a war with the states we will first bomb japan.

if we have a war with the states we will first bomb japan.

Don't know about first, but the US bases would certainly be likely to get hit, in either a conventional or nuclear fight.

Hey I voted "China' but the radial button reset itself to "USA"- no fair!

America, even if it didn't go nuclear

because china's navy is tiny and though china can put up 100,000 million men it would be hard pressed to feed, clothe, arm and lead them all

Great point.

It would be tough for any nation to do all those things to a great number of troops.

I think the US has the budget (because stupid Bush and his 87 billion funding) to win, and the superior technology.

Nope. No way. Certainly not within the next 10 years, and highly unlikely within the foreseeable future..



The PRC is nowhere near running out of space. India, with a similary sized population (set to overtake China as the largest in the world in 30-50 years), has a much greater population density - more than twice the density of the PRC (densities are 319 and 134 respectively). You might note that the PRC has a population density roughly the same as the Czech Republic.

And if they do begin experiencing population pressures, Mongolia and Siberia are right on their doorstep. Siberia is resource rich. And both are equally as empty as Australia and either comparitively weak militarily or on thier way to being so.

The PRC is much more likely to be at war with Taiwan and the US, Russia, or India in the next 10 years. Those are nations with which China has long standing disputes. Australia really doesn't matter much to the PRC (except as a US ally).

And the currentleadership of the PRC could hardly be descriped as wackos. That's simply silly and disrespectful.



There is absolutely no possible way the PLA could conscript 15% of the population. Period. About 50 million would be the most the PLA could reasonably expect to conscript. And the logistics of training and arming that many men would be such a significant drain on the economy that it could be sustained for long.
Furthermore, there is no possible way to transport any invasion force of that size. Look at the large scale amphibious invasions of WWII - Africa to Italy and UK to France. Operation Torch is the closest I can find in modern times to what you are proposing and that was 100 thousand men over 4000 miles of open ocean as opposed to even the modern sized PLA of 1.5 million men over a much greater distance. Moving that large of an invasion force would be a major logistical and intelligence nightmare. I'll point out that whether the PLAN has sufficient lift capacity to invade Taiwan is a major question. There is no way they could build up the naval forces required for an invasion of Australia in the next 10 years.



That assumes the DPRK will even be around in 10 years, much less a major problem for the US.



Can you honestly provide me with a Biblical chapter and verse clearly mentioning either Australia or the PRC.
To give this persons idea some substance; i have read of China using Australia as private land for the Chinese government in 2018 in the Britanica books. I cant remember why that information was in them?
But i suppose time will tell...

To give this persons idea some substance; i have read of China using Australia as private land for the Chinese government in 2018 in the Britanica books. I cant remember why that information was in them?
But i suppose time will tell...

2018 is outside Gibraltar's 10 year time frame. At least the Encyclopedia Britanica is a more reliable source of information than the Bible for these sorts of things.
By 2018 the PLA's modernization should allow them to take on Russia or India and kick ass. And it will be gaining on the US to the point of making the US the automatic victor in a Taiwan straits war a questionable proposition. But it still is unlikely to have either the inclination, motive, or power projection capacity to take Australia.