NationStates Jolt Archive

Who will win?

The situation in most cases for this would be Taiwanese government officially declares independance and China attempts an invasion of Taiwan. The US comes to the aid of the Taiwan. And to throw a curve in here, North Korea invades South Korea. Other nations can join hell, just say what you think they'll do. NO NUKES ALLOWED!!!!!

Navy The PRC will try and use their navy to gain control of the Formosa Straight. They have a limited amphibious ability and can only move 10,000 soldiers at a time. The ROC and PRC have equal surface fleets, but the PRC wins under the ocean with a large fleet of older Romeo and Ming SSKs. They have 5 SSNs and 4-10 Kilo SSKs, which are somewhat deadly, but no match for an American 688, 21, or 774 boat.

I think if 1 US CVBG is able to strike within 3 days the Chinese lose on the invasion. F/A-18s in a single raid can destroy the entire PRC invasion force and make any invasion attempt by the PRC a loss. As more US CVBGs come in quickly. (The US practiced for such a situation during the Summer of 2004.) The F-14Ds and super-hornets would help the ROC's surface fleet beat the PRC fleet. US SSNs would have a good hunting time, especially the Virginia, which is built for littoral waters. The Japanese would also likely help the US. Their Aegis DDGs along with US Aegis ships would help maintain good defenses against attackers and would provide defense for the ROC from missile attacks.

SSNs can be used to stop oil shipments to PRC and shut down their military and economy. That would equal a win.

Air AWACs from E-3s and E-2s will give the US an advantage along with help from Aegis in the air. The ROC and PRC have equal air forces, but when you add in The Japanese and USAF and naval aviation the allies get the nod. Superior missiles in the Phoenix and fire and forget Sidewinders and AMRAAMs help. F/A-22A Raptors and JSFs would help immensly in giving the US an advantage.

B-2s, B-1s, and F-117s would help tons in bombing missions to take out PRC defensive positions. F-16s will also have similar missions and be very helpful along with other fighters.

Army I can see a win without a major ground war if you use the Navy to halt oil supplies to China.

As best as I can tell the most logical answer is:
The Invader Loses.
If America tried to take it to the Chinese they would be smashed.

However the Chinese could never hope to survive an attempted U.S. invasion.

So this is a case where the Defender has the advantage.
Or do I sound completely off?

As best as I can tell the most logical answer is:
The Invader Loses.
If America tried to take it to the Chinese they would be smashed.

However the Chinese could never hope to survive an attempted U.S. invasion.

So this is a case where the Defender has the advantage.
Or do I sound completely off?
Pretty much I'm not saying they invade eachother, they fight over non-controlled ground, Taiwan. I agree that neighter nation would win in an invasion, but the US can make the PRC sue for peace.

I think the US has a slight advantage, due to its more high tech military, but such an evenly matched conflict would be hard to predict.

Ok, given your terms of a Neutral field of Battle.
I give it to the PRC making the United States sue for Peace.
I simply agree with the old maxim that Infantry wins wars.

THe bottom line is that China cannot hope to win in the Air and Sea. Their greatest threat is in medium-range ballistic missiles, and they aren't a significant threat. However, any ground war in mainland china would be an exercise in futility.

Now on to North Korea and SOuth Korea. Who really gives a crap? I never really understood why we have so much military presence in South Korea. Fu*k Korea.

Considering you wrote "hypothetical" instead of "possible", I'll actually reply to this.

The main question would be what kind of war we are dealing with? Is this a war of conquest, or some kind of territorial dispute (Pacific possessions?) gone wrong? Either way, it comes down into something very easy.


Neither side wins. Neither side can afford to win. Neither side dares win. Why? Nuclear arms. The moment one side looks dangerously close to losing, they may get desperate. Desperation, causes hasty actions. Hastiness in a nuclear power is catastrophic. That said...


The United States has a massive technological edge in its weaponry, although China, obviously, has a massive edge in manpower. The result would be that the US would have to limit China's logistical output and supply lines. If the Chinese can't feed their men, their advantage is lost. Its that easy.

I dont think the tech advantage is that great-Chinese military is not as backwards as some seem to think.

I think this was said about the Soviets during WWII(could have been a movie)
"The germans will run out of bullets before we run out of men."

Just a note i'd thought i'd add the cheineze logistics prevents pretty much any large operation over a hundred miles from its borders

The defender only has a definite advantage in ground battles, which would probably be nonexistant in this war because the sheer number of Chinese military would be too intimidating for that kind of invasion. Most likely though, the United States could win the war with blockades and tons upon tons of bombs.

I would win

Who will win?

The situation in most cases for this would be Taiwanese government officially declares independance and China attempts an invasion of Taiwan. The US comes to the aid of the Taiwan. And to throw a curve in here, North Korea invades South Korea. Other nations can join hell, just say what you think they'll do. NO NUKES ALLOWED!!!!!

Navy The PRC will try and use their navy to gain control of the Formosa Straight. They have a limited amphibious ability and can only move 10,000 soldiers at a time. The ROC and PRC have equal surface fleets, but the PRC wins under the ocean with a large fleet of older Romeo and Ming SSKs. They have 5 SSNs and 4-10 Kilo SSKs, which are somewhat deadly, but no match for an American 688, 21, or 774 boat.

I think if 1 US CVBG is able to strike within 3 days the Chinese lose on the invasion. F/A-18s in a single raid can destroy the entire PRC invasion force and make any invasion attempt by the PRC a loss. As more US CVBGs come in quickly. (The US practiced for such a situation during the Summer of 2004.) The F-14Ds and super-hornets would help the ROC's surface fleet beat the PRC fleet. US SSNs would have a good hunting time, especially the Virginia, which is built for littoral waters. The Japanese would also likely help the US. Their Aegis DDGs along with US Aegis ships would help maintain good defenses against attackers and would provide defense for the ROC from missile attacks.

SSNs can be used to stop oil shipments to PRC and shut down their military and economy. That would equal a win.

Air AWACs from E-3s and E-2s will give the US an advantage along with help from Aegis in the air. The ROC and PRC have equal air forces, but when you add in The Japanese and USAF and naval aviation the allies get the nod. Superior missiles in the Phoenix and fire and forget Sidewinders and AMRAAMs help. F/A-22A Raptors and JSFs would help immensly in giving the US an advantage.

B-2s, B-1s, and F-117s would help tons in bombing missions to take out PRC defensive positions. F-16s will also have similar missions and be very helpful along with other fighters.

Army I can see a win without a major ground war if you use the Navy to halt oil supplies to China.


I see the air war turning out differently that you figure. The Chinese have a huge airforce. Between that and land based missiles, they would put a hurting on us.

Navy: Taking out their amphibs. would be imperative. W/o that, the Chinese would not be able to move troops. W/ that, we would lose the fight.

W/ the amphibs intact, the Chinese would hold Taiwan but would have been hurt severely as would we. Partial PRC Victory

W/o the amphibs, Taiwan holds but all sides hurt. Partial USA Victory.

Overall a tie. IMO

as of 2004 lets look at the situation... the US has few troops available immediately in the area, but Taiwan has plenty of troops to defend itself and the US Navy and Air Force would slaughter the PRC navy at sea. This leaves the PRC with few options:

Pressure the US somewhere else.. South Korea comes to mind here, and although I think the ROKs could defeat the NKPA without our help, with PRC involvement we have a Second Korean War that will drag on for at least months and possibly years, with Japan probably joining in on the ROK side as well. The PRC would hope to trade the ROK for Taiwan (risky but possibly achievable).

Cut off Taiwan by launching massive missile strikes with chemical agents against airfields (degrades the effectiveness of air defenses), massive air attacks against critical communications and electrical power infrastructure, plus hit the Taiwan navy hard and use mine warfare and submarines to cutoff maritime trade and hope to bring about surrender. To deal with the inevitable US Navy response, hope for a battle of attrition that the US gets tired of and calls it a day... also high risk, but possible perhaps.. danger is that using chemicals may trigger US or possibly Taiwan (who has a nuclear industry of considerable ability) response and the situation gets uglier than can be controlled.

Variations of this strategy could see moves against Vietnam (which doesnt like the Chinese much either) or a massive move into Southeast Asia... this makes use of Chinese ground strength enabling it to get to areas critical to the west (Thailand and Malaysia), avoid the US Navy, and getting bargaining chips to trade for Taiwan.... highest risk because it makes PRC the obvious aggressor but the potential payoff for PRC is very high as well.....

Only other possibility of a US vs PRC war would be a massive move against Siberia (as in Tom Clancy's recent novel) .... this, if successful, makes China a superpower in resources but is unlikely because the Russians still have about 600 ICBMs and at least some of them are bound to still work. Extreme risk and these Chinese leaders are old men, not prone to rashness.

10 years from now the equation changes dangerously.. the PRC is rapidly approaching in its industrial base the capability to build weapons as good or better than its neighbors except for Japan and the US. Its economy will allow it to field a modern well equipped and high tech army, with a powerful navy and air force second only the the US and possibly Japan (who will be watching the PRC very closely). Sames issues, but this time the PRC might have an amphibious and airborne capability sufficient to actually attempt an invasion with a good chance of success after overwhelming the Taiwanese air force and navy with conventional weapons.

This time around you would see fighting on the ground in Taiwan, who would have to hold out long enough for US and Japanese reinforcements to arrive, and those reinforcements would have to fight their way in by sea.

Equation long term gets dicey for Taiwan. PRC is smart enough to know this.

We will see.... hopefully the old men who run the PRC will wait long enough so that democratic forces (or even civil war potentially, a very real danger in China for reasons I can go into if you want) makes the attempt impossible for other reasons. But long term, Taiwan is looking at continued risk of PRC attack if it fails to behave as the PRC wants.

This happened yesterday
In a game of CivIII that I was playing, China won

One word: Nukes

10 years from now the equation changes dangerously.. the PRC is rapidly approaching in its industrial base the capability to build weapons as good or better than its neighbors except for Japan and the US. Its economy will allow it to field a modern well equipped and high tech army, with a powerful navy and air force second only the the US and possibly Japan (who will be watching the PRC very closely). Sames issues, but this time the PRC might have an amphibious and airborne capability sufficient to actually attempt an invasion with a good chance of success after overwhelming the Taiwanese air force and navy with conventional weapons.

This time around you would see fighting on the ground in Taiwan, who would have to hold out long enough for US and Japanese reinforcements to arrive, and those reinforcements would have to fight their way in by sea.

Equation long term gets dicey for Taiwan. PRC is smart enough to know this.

We will see.... hopefully the old men who run the PRC will wait long enough so that democratic forces (or even civil war potentially, a very real danger in China for reasons I can go into if you want) makes the attempt impossible for other reasons. But long term, Taiwan is looking at continued risk of PRC attack if it fails to behave as the PRC wants.

Actually, ten years from now is totally unpredictable when it comes to China, for reasons that don't apply anywhere else, and those reasons are really three-fold.

1) Population. China has already reached, or exceeded, what most staticians think is the maximum population the country can provide for adequately, or even minimally. The country is already dangerously close to finding itself split into two demographics, manufacturers and farmers, leaving dangerous gaps in the rest of the economy, and threatening long term stability.

2) The advancements in the Chinese economy are not reflected in its standard of living, which poses the long-term possibility of a manufacturing bubble, where the Chinese economy has become hinged on Western corporations. In the case of a war with the US, the United States has the natural manufacturing capacity to care for itself (the US was originally a manufacturing power, the infrastructure is still there), China however does not have the necessary capital to keep itself afloat without foreign corporations, especially US ones. If the US corporations were forced to pull their operations out of China, as they would in the case of war, massive unemployment combined with monumental price increases (Japan+US comprise a huge component of China's net imports) could well unravel the economy.

3) Women. Pure and simple, the gender gap is already being hit, and in the coming years the problem is expected to explode exponentially. The 1 child limit combined with traditional preference for male children has left the younger demographics of China with a massive difference in males to females in the years 18 and below. When this population reaches maturity, there will be such a critical shortage of females, that the reaction is totally unpredictable, with the net gain of population still being real, just stratospherically male oriented.


10 years down the line is a scary, scary time for China.

One word: Nukes

well that certainly clarified things.....

so lets talk about nuclear weapons.

The PRC has 10 ICBMs that can reach the continental US, plus a few hundred missiles that can reach most of Asia, including western Siberia (Russia), Japan, Okinawa and even Guam (principal US base areas).

The US at this point has 550 ICBMs that can reach anywhere on the planet, plus 12 Ohio class submarines that carry even more missiles that can also reach anywhere they need to.

China is not going to attempt to attack the US with nuclear weapons unless it is because we nuked them first... they aren't interested in national suicide.

They also know that no US President will be able to use nuclear weapons unless the US is facing national catastrophe or has been invaded, or really critical issues are at stake.

Taiwan isn't that critical.

So China will stick to conventional weapons when fighting the US or Japan, and use chemical weapons only against Taiwan (if that).

10 years from now, it could be different. The PRC could have a much larger arsenal by then (an example, the Soviet Union went from a dozen missiles in 1962 that could reach the US from Soviet territory to over a 1000 missiles by 1970)

then we are looking at another Balance of Terror situation should the PRC choose to go that route.

For now though, the PRC cannot risk the nuclear option without risking national suicide.

Actually, ten years from now is totally unpredictable when it comes to China, for reasons that don't apply anywhere else, and those reasons are really three-fold.

1) Population. China has already reached, or exceeded, what most staticians think is the maximum population the country can provide for adequately, or even minimally. The country is already dangerously close to finding itself split into two demographics, manufacturers and farmers, leaving dangerous gaps in the rest of the economy, and threatening long term stability.

2) The advancements in the Chinese economy are not reflected in its standard of living, which poses the long-term possibility of a manufacturing bubble, where the Chinese economy has become hinged on Western corporations. In the case of a war with the US, the United States has the natural manufacturing capacity to care for itself (the US was originally a manufacturing power, the infrastructure is still there), China however does not have the necessary capital to keep itself afloat without foreign corporations, especially US ones. If the US corporations were forced to pull their operations out of China, as they would in the case of war, massive unemployment combined with monumental price increases (Japan+US comprise a huge component of China's net imports) could well unravel the economy.

3) Women. Pure and simple, the gender gap is already being hit, and in the coming years the problem is expected to explode exponentially. The 1 child limit combined with traditional preference for male children has left the younger demographics of China with a massive difference in males to females in the years 18 and below. When this population reaches maturity, there will be such a critical shortage of females, that the reaction is totally unpredictable, with the net gain of population still being real, just stratospherically male oriented.


10 years down the line is a scary, scary time for China.

good analysis... I will add also that China faces a very serious long term threat of civil war (for all kinds of reasons).

The most important reason is that Cantonese Chinese (south of the Yellow River) speak Cantonese and don't like the northern Chinese (who speak mandarin)... this also happens to be the dividing line between rice agriculture and wheat agriculture and is a several thousand year old divide. Historically when China splits, it starts along this divide.

Southern China is reaping the most benefit of capalism, while northern China is where the traditional older industries (steel, coal etc) are concentrated and these industries are not getting the same benefits.

If China splits, that will be the main reason... only the trigger event is the question, and when that event occurs. It isn't inevitable, but it is very likely.

One problem with non democratic leaders is that they sometimes look for a foreign war to get their people to stand behind them. That would be a major triggering event for a US / PRC clash as well.

good analysis... I will add also that China faces a very serious long term threat of civil war (for all kinds of reasons).

The most important reason is that Cantonese Chinese (south of the Yellow River) speak Cantonese and don't like the northern Chinese (who speak mandarin)... this also happens to be the dividing line between rice agriculture and wheat agriculture and is a several thousand year old divide. Historically when China splits, it starts along this divide.

Southern China is reaping the most benefit of capalism, while northern China is where the traditional older industries (steel, coal etc) are concentrated and these industries are not getting the same benefits.

If China splits, that will be the main reason... only the trigger event is the question, and when that event occurs. It isn't inevitable, but it is very likely.

One problem with non democratic leaders is that they sometimes look for a foreign war to get their people to stand behind them. That would be a major triggering event for a US / PRC clash as well.
Your also forgetting the classic wildcard.

Youth.

The world has already seen that the educated youth of China is not particulary pro-PRC. If the US were to engage them in war, the chances of student revolts against the PRC (especially if they were to engage in chemical attacks) would suddenly become significantly more plausible, especially if the US were to encourage such a revolt. This type of revolt could well fragment the PRC to the point of no return, as integral dissension between hardliners, reformers, extremists, even islamists, could pull the country into oblivion.

As for geographic problems, your forgetting the modern Islamic SE versus traditional Confusciaist/Taoist/Buddhist North. China has over 10 dialects. Regional differences are extreme. Conclusion? China is much more unstable than anyone truly realizes.

Actually, ten years from now is totally unpredictable when it comes to China, for reasons that don't apply anywhere else, and those reasons are really three-fold.

1) Population. China has already reached, or exceeded, what most staticians think is the maximum population the country can provide for adequately, or even minimally. The country is already dangerously close to finding itself split into two demographics, manufacturers and farmers, leaving dangerous gaps in the rest of the economy, and threatening long term stability.

2) The advancements in the Chinese economy are not reflected in its standard of living, which poses the long-term possibility of a manufacturing bubble, where the Chinese economy has become hinged on Western corporations. In the case of a war with the US, the United States has the natural manufacturing capacity to care for itself (the US was originally a manufacturing power, the infrastructure is still there), China however does not have the necessary capital to keep itself afloat without foreign corporations, especially US ones. If the US corporations were forced to pull their operations out of China, as they would in the case of war, massive unemployment combined with monumental price increases (Japan+US comprise a huge component of China's net imports) could well unravel the economy.

3) Women. Pure and simple, the gender gap is already being hit, and in the coming years the problem is expected to explode exponentially. The 1 child limit combined with traditional preference for male children has left the younger demographics of China with a massive difference in males to females in the years 18 and below. When this population reaches maturity, there will be such a critical shortage of females, that the reaction is totally unpredictable, with the net gain of population still being real, just stratospherically male oriented.


10 years down the line is a scary, scary time for China.

In 46 years time, China will have increased her population to 1.4 billion people. This is with the one child policy.

A scary time for China? I think not.

Secondly, the US will never go to war with China over Taiwan. The US is bound only to supply the Taiwanese with equipment, not to directly defend them against China.

If China attempted to take Taiwan, Tapei would fall within 3 weeks. All that would happen from the western powers would be a condemnation and Chinese loans would be recalled - possibly.

Let us all remember that over the past 5 years western economies have sunk all their eggs into the Chinese basket. If China's economy collapsed, so too would everyone else.

China wins no matter what.

In 46 years time, China will have increased her population to 1.4 billion people. This is with the one child policy.

A scary time for China? I think not.

Secondly, the US will never go to war with China over Taiwan. The US is bound only to supply the Taiwanese with equipment, not to directly defend them against China.

If China attempted to take Taiwan, Tapei would fall within 3 weeks. All that would happen from the western powers would be a condemnation and Chinese loans would be recalled - possibly.

Let us all remember that over the past 5 years western economies have sunk all their eggs into the Chinese basket. If China's economy collapsed, so too would everyone else.

China wins no matter what.
Did you even bother to read my post? Oh well, lets go over it all again.

1) Chinese increases in population are EXTREMELY BAD FOR CHINA. They already reaching their limit in terms of ability to feed, shelter, educate, and cloth their populace, without adding tens to hundreds of millions of children to that equation. Furthermore, the gender divide in China is a massive problem. The one child law has left the majority of families choosing the traditional preference, males, and either killing or releasing into adoption most female children. This divide, as it has done in Saudi Arabia, cannot fail to cause massive internal disruptions as male youths fail to find women to marry. This massive sexual frustration, as it does in SA, will likely land on the government.

2) The US is treaty bound to defend Taiwan. It has to do so, and it has the means in the area to do so. Furthermore, you are forgetting that SEATO would be forced to become involved on the American/Taiwanese side. Taiwan as it currently stands is always prepared for invasion. It is run on an almost Israeli model of citizen training, arming, and preparation. Furthermore, Taiwanese nuclear industry strength provides a massive deterent to any ground assailant.

3) The Chinese economy is based on foreign corporations. It is through massive foreign investment that the Chinese economy has largely reinvented itself, as multinational corporations flock to utilize its low price, high yield population for their own ends. The fact is that since the world economy dropped China has seen a 15% drop in its total manufacturing. This is partly due to the natural process of increased per person manufacturing. However, it is also partly the resurgence of other nations, notably the US, into the manufacturing market. China is currently more in need of the US, for its imports, for employment, than the US is for its manufacturing, which can be provided by other large populace, low price nations, such as India, Indonesia, or even closer to home South American nations.


China likely losses no matter what, their economy cannot take the stress of major war, nor can their society.

In 46 years time, China will have increased her population to 1.4 billion people. This is with the one child policy.

A scary time for China? I think not.

Secondly, the US will never go to war with China over Taiwan. The US is bound only to supply the Taiwanese with equipment, not to directly defend them against China.

If China attempted to take Taiwan, Tapei would fall within 3 weeks. All that would happen from the western powers would be a condemnation and Chinese loans would be recalled - possibly.

Let us all remember that over the past 5 years western economies have sunk all their eggs into the Chinese basket. If China's economy collapsed, so too would everyone else.

China wins no matter what.

economics has never prevented a war..... Germany's biggest trading partner in 1913 and 1939 was France... both World Wars happened anyway. Germany's biggest trading partner in 1941 was the Soviet Union, but tanks crossed into the Soviet Union all the same. Before the American Civil War, the biggest trading partner for the South was the North... Fort Sumter occured anyway... the list is endless.

Secondly, the value of Western investment in China is sizeable, but not in a proportional level that is catastrophic... China has more tied up in American markets for their goods then the US has in Chinese markets for its goods or US loans to China.

Thirdly, just how are the Chinese going to take Taiwan in 3 weeks with a negligible amphibious and airborne lift capability, a relatively obsolete fleet when compared to US, Japanese or Taiwan's, and albeit large but mostly obsolete air force?

Chinese divisions have to get there someway... and posts above talk about why that isn't going to happen right now.

Your also forgetting the classic wildcard.

Youth.

The world has already seen that the educated youth of China is not particulary pro-PRC. If the US were to engage them in war, the chances of student revolts against the PRC (especially if they were to engage in chemical attacks) would suddenly become significantly more plausible, especially if the US were to encourage such a revolt. This type of revolt could well fragment the PRC to the point of no return, as integral dissension between hardliners, reformers, extremists, even islamists, could pull the country into oblivion.

As for geographic problems, your forgetting the modern Islamic SE versus traditional Confusciaist/Taoist/Buddhist North. China has over 10 dialects. Regional differences are extreme. Conclusion? China is much more unstable than anyone truly realizes.

also good points, but I still stick to the North South Split has being a more dangerous issue for China than the other two you mentioned, but those are likely triggering events.

Taiwan is in many ways just as large an egg basket as China. For example, Taiwan is a major exportor of advanced microchips.

Moreover, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would not go over well with voters in the US or Japan, nor with the governments of most SE Asian nations. No matter how weak and divided and paranoid China feels, most other nations feel threatened by the Chinese giant. If Taiwan is "reunited," who is next?

That might not seem logical, but neither fear nor people are.

By invading Taiwan, China risks a LOT.
-Ongoing rapid foreign direct investment
-Possible sanctions by "angered" world economies (like Europe, or like Russia and Middle Eastern nations who are selling oil to enegry hungry China).
-Destroying the valuable capital already in Taiwan
-Getting a heavy military blow (even one that does not lead to China's surrender)
-And ultimately, of loss.

Consider, China is trying desperately to hold on to its provinces. If Taiwan succedes in seperating...so might other provinces.

China's best chance for success is to increase economic ties with Taiwan. Should that occur, political ties could soon follow.

Once again, it depends on who invades who, are they trying to conquer or mearly destroy everything etc

I doubt either would be able to take over the other.

Blah blah blah.

The US would win. We always win. That's the rules.

This thread keeps reappearing, obviously because there are many Americans who can only define the country in terms of opposition to an enemy.

Chinese policy, Taiwanese policy, and American policy are all for One China. China will no more allow Taiwan to declare independence than the U.S. would allow New York to succeed. Nor will the U.S. spill American blood to prevent what it has said it supports through seven American administrations. Eventually Tiawan will be reabsorbed back into mainland China and the U.S. will not do anything about it.

Nor will China, historically (and it is a long history) an isoltionist, xenophobic nation, challenge the U.S. on the world stage, beyond those nations on its borders.

However, China, while the third greatest producer of energy in the world, is also the second largest consumer, after the United States. China has become a net importer of oil, about half of which comes from Saudi Arabia, so in that sense China closely mirrors the U.S.

Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world are found in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Currently 2/3s of that oil goes to the west, but in the near future 3/4s of it will go to Asia, especially China. The geopolitical vision that is driving the current Republican Neo-Con policy toward Iraq and the entire Middle East involves American dominance of global oil production, not to supply American domestic needs, but rather, as leverage over other energy rivals, particularly Europe, Russia, and China.

This is not about oil as fuel, but rather oil as power.

Certainly China and the U.S. will continue to compete for world oil reserves as China modernizes. However, there can be little argument that it is the United States that has been the more belligerent of the two in seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf militarily.

Blah blah blah.

The US would win. We always win. That's the rules.

Send a copy of those rules to Ho Chi Minh.

Blah blah blah.

The US would win. We always win. That's the rules.

You actually believe that the US could fully take over china if it tried? It can't even control security in Iraq, how is it going to conquer a nation of 1.2 billion people?

I remember you Ogiek from the other thread and your exact same arguement...

first of all, the chances of the US intetionally pushing the PRC into war are unlikely as even our current President has actually heard at least of the Korean War.

A war between the US and PRC would not be about oil. It would be about the traditional US strategic interest in ensuring no hostile power dominates Asia to the point that it is a threat to the mainland US. In addition, US commercial interests in ensuring it has access to Chinese markets are very important policy issues that led indirectly to the War between the US and Japan. But China isn't allowing the US in to anywhere to the same degree that the US has allowed the PRC into our markets.... so that historical policy is quickly fading in value (not that it has ever really worked out for the US).

East Asia with China dominating politically Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia and Taiwan would be a sizeable threat to the US not only economically, but strategically and the US will not tolerate it without a fight. So in the end, to ensure the safety of Japan (and its basic US ally status), as well as South Korea and to prevent the Chinese from getting ideas about other parts of Asia the US will have to fight to defend Taiwan should it come to it, and basic US strategic interests ensure there is no choice but to do so.

The US would win. We always win. That's the rules.ooooooookey

The US would probably win at first, but it would need to engage the world in order to stabilize it afterwards. A China torn apart by terrorist factions, and full of nuclear weapons is a scary thought.

Let's say this does occur. I'd suspect the Taiwanese to probably give the US a little bit of advance notice. The US would probably deploy a couple of carrier battle groups to the area. We'd probably put AEGIS cruisers in various Taiwanese ports so as to be able to intercept inbound cruise missiles.

Once the Taiwanese and the Chinese go at it, I'd suspect that we'd see a quick initial naval battle, with the US/Taiwan/Japan and probably Britain and Australia mashing the PLAN into pieces. Followed by cruise missile and air strike attempts, which would be handily defeated by the allied air forces.

A severe blockade would be imposed on the coast of the PRC, starving them of the necessary western capital and middle eastern oil.

The PRC might make an attempt westward into India, in an attempt to get to the middle east, but India is a new nuclear power, and would probably use it's tactical nuclear weapons very very very rashly.

The PRC might incite something in Korea, but the ROKs could hold them off, espescially with American air power out of Guam and Japan hitting the North. We'd probably nail Manchuria this time as well. Not gonna make that mistake again.

I'd say Siberia wouldn't be a good thing for the Chinese to go after. As said before, the Russians still have a goodly number of ICBM's, and though they may not have that behemoth of a Soviet military anymore, they are still capable, and their vehicles are a match for the Chinese.

I'd also suspect that if the PRC hit Taiwan, the PRC would lose it's Security Council Seat. I'd doubt the Taiwanese would get it, but the Japanese would be right in line for one of those spots. And with a UN condemnation against their war, the allies would seem righteous.

I'd say it is a lose-lose situation for China. They don't have the naval or aerial projection capabilities, and they rely way too much on potentially hostile foreigners to keep their economy on line. They could seriously screw some stuff up with their ICBMs, but in ten years the US will have it's interceptor missiles online, and we'd be able to take out a majority of the Chinese nukes.

I think that you've all forgotten a few major points. The Chinese people aren't limited to just the Motherland, we're all over the world. There are enough Chinese people in Australia to cause a lot of problems for the Australian Government if Australia ever decided to join any such war against China. Likewise in America, you'll find Chinese-heritage people committing so-called terrorist actions within American borders. That's an advantage that America most definitely does Not have in China, and would effectively neutralise any advantage America may have.

Long Live China!

Depends on many factors.

Timeing is probably a big one. As pointed out above, the Chinese are closing the technology gap pretty fast. It probably won't be 10 years - more like 20, but they will catch up. If it happens 20+ years from now, it's likely to be a tie.

Exact global circumstances are also big. Will the US still be engaged in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the next potential hot spot like Syria or Iran? Korea going hot would further stretch the US military. With Afghanistan, Iraq, and Korea all hot, it's a PRC victory.

Japan is a wild card. The government would likely want to participate, but the general populace would not go for it. There is little popular support for the current very small, SDF deployment. However, the PRC is likely to hit US bases in Japan, as that's the main base for the US is in Asia. Japanese involvement could go either way in that case.

Let's say this does occur. I'd suspect the Taiwanese to probably give the US a little bit of advance notice.....And Washington wuold "persuade" Taiwan not to Provoke China.

Why? for the same reason the Pentagon refuses to strike NK.

I'd also like to point out that some of these posters have greatly underestimated the PLA. There are more people in the Armed Forces of China, than there are americans in the world, not to mention those of us who would be willing to lead and participate in uprisings in every country with a Chinese population.

Also, 99% of people on Taiwan province support complete reunification with the Motherland. The Mainland wouldn't need to invade, the people would overthrow Chen Shuibian.

A war between the US and PRC would not be about oil. It would be about the traditional US strategic interest in ensuring no hostile power dominates Asia to the point that it is a threat to the mainland US.

East Asia with China dominating politically Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia and Taiwan would be a sizeable threat to the US not only economically, but strategically and the US will not tolerate it without a fight. So in the end, to ensure the safety of Japan (and its basic US ally status), as well as South Korea and to prevent the Chinese from getting ideas about other parts of Asia the US will have to fight to defend Taiwan should it come to it, and basic US strategic interests ensure there is no choice but to do so.

Except for the part about oil, you are representing the Neo-Conservative position on preventing the rise of regional powers (see “The Project for the New American Century”).

According to the Neo-Cons the US must hedge China's rise to great-power status and must strategically contain China's armed forces, through pre-emption if necessary, while US policymakers maintain America's economic world dominance.

This policy, advocating global US hegemony, primarily through the threat or use of military power, is a greater danger to world peace than China's hopes for reunification with Tiawan. It is this Neo-Con policy that makes Persian Gulf oil so important in U.S.-China relations.

I think that you've all forgotten a few major points. The Chinese people aren't limited to just the Motherland, we're all over the world. There are enough Chinese people in Australia to cause a lot of problems for the Australian Government if Australia ever decided to join any such war against China. Likewise in America, you'll find Chinese-heritage people committing so-called terrorist actions within American borders. That's an advantage that America most definitely does Not have in China, and would effectively neutralise any advantage America may have.

Long Live China!

ah, the rightous voice of Chinese nationalism speaks out.....

how many of these Chinese heritage people are pro communist exactly? Not many I suspect, especially in Australia and the US.

I'd also like to point out that some of these posters have greatly underestimated the PLA. There are more people in the Armed Forces of China, than there are americans in the world, not to mention those of us who would be willing to lead and participate in uprisings in every country with a Chinese population.

Also, 99% of people on Taiwan province support complete reunification with the Motherland. The Mainland wouldn't need to invade, the people would overthrow Chen Shuibian.
Haven't heard about the 99% support. I have heard of about 50% support. Here's a link talking about reunification attitudes, it's fairly rambling, but if you stick with it you can make it through.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ch/chinese_reunification.html

So there are upwards of 280 million chinese soldiers? Wowser, thats what, a good 1/4 of their pop? Yeah. It also takes a whole hell of a a lot more than a bunch of dudes with AKs to shoot down B-52s. Or to blow up a Carrier Battle Group.

American Technocracy would own the Chinese on the Sea and in the Air, and with those, we wouldn't need to go against the PLA. We could blockade and sit it out.

Many Chinese in the US arrived here before the arrival of the PRC, and the ones who arrived during and after the arrival of the PRC were typically anti-communist refugees. They don't bear a tremendous love for the PRC. Similar talk was heard from the Empire of Japan before WWII, but all that got was the US tossing a whole bunch of loyal-to-the-US Japanese Civilians in camps. No, the Chinese population in the US and Australia would not revolt, they are just as loyal citizens in either country as anyone else.

Except for the part about oil, you are representing the Neo-Conservative position on preventing the rise of regional powers (see “The Project for the New American Century”).

According to the Neo-Cons the US must hedge China's rise to great-power status and must strategically contain China's armed forces, through pre-emption if necessary, while US policymakers maintain America's economic world dominance.

This policy, advocating global US hegemony, primarily through the threat or use of military power, is a greater danger to world peace than China's hopes for reunification with Tiawan. It is this Neo-Con policy that makes Persian Gulf oil so important in U.S.-China relations.

wow, never been called a neo con before, and to think I voted for Kerry...

strategic geography doesnt change no matter what you call someone who disagrees with you. The bottom line is that it is the best interests of the US and Australia and Canada to ensure that China doesn't become a superpower until such time as it is a friendly state, or it breaks up. The PRC is definitely not a friendly state at this time, but relations are correct for now.

Containment worked in the Cold War, it didn't lead to armegeddon (a real risk at least on three occasions), and plays to American strengths. We do not live in a safe world, and American hegemony first existed in 1945 and has been only offset by the Soviet Union (which in the end collapsed). So far, American hegemony has not led to the US establishing political empire, and the American commerical empire is on the decline (and has been since the 1970s) compared to were it was in 1946.

The US move into Iraq is a policy issue that should be discussed on another thread as it is way of the subject in my view. I will agree that is was possibly a strategic blunder, and was obviosly not thoughtfully carried out or even brilliantly (maybe not even competently) handled. But it isn't about the US / China contest for world power, it is about other issues.

The US does not dominate the world economically, at this point, the Europeans, Japanese, smaller Asian nations, and the US all compete, along with China and India, for global, regional and national markets. In 1946 the US had 50% of the Worlds GDP. Now it has about 18%.... so hegemony is long gone.

Read the book by George Kennedy "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" to get an excellent and critical view of how hegemony works and why no one has really ever had it in the modern age except for extremely brief periods of time.

China isn't purely communist. Hong Kong and Macao maintain their independent economies, as do Autonomous Regions within the Mainland, and as would Taiwan.

Reunification isn't just about control of the Taiwan economy. It is rooted in culture, in that China has been a unified country for 2200 years, ever since the Qin (Ch'in) dynasty (where the name China comes from). It is a nationalistic, even sentimental thing that all Chinese share a desire to see their home country as one. Westerners don't have this tie anywhere as strong as those of us from the Middle Kingdom, so I don't expect you to understand it.

Reunification would mean greater morale for all Chinese people throughout the world. It would see increased culture, increased trade between the different economies of the Chinese people, and relative peace among the Chinese.

I hope that in the short term, All of China will participate in the Beijing Olympics as one country.

I'd also like to point out that some of these posters have greatly underestimated the PLA. There are more people in the Armed Forces of China, than there are americans in the world, not to mention those of us who would be willing to lead and participate in uprisings in every country with a Chinese population.

Also, 99% of people on Taiwan province support complete reunification with the Motherland. The Mainland wouldn't need to invade, the people would overthrow Chen Shuibian.

current estimates of the PRC PLA are about 3 million.... so where does the other 297 million PLA soldiers come from exactly? That would be every male in the country 18 - 55, which is hardly likely since those same men are the primary workforce. Now granted, the PLA has an immense Peoples Militia, organized into regional commands, but this is not an offensive force, has never been mobilized and for one thing they don't have any ships or aircraft, so unless they plan to all swim to Taiwan they arent going to invade anyone except your neighbors.

That 99% figure is completely inaccurate according to Taiwan's own numbers. So if you want us to accept your figure as a creditable source, how about some verification of that figure?

Also, 99% of people on Taiwan province support complete reunification with the Motherland. The Mainland wouldn't need to invade, the people would overthrow Chen Shuibian.hmmm....I dont know about that

China isn't purely communist. Hong Kong and Macao maintain their independent economies, as do Autonomous Regions within the Mainland, and as would Taiwan.

Reunification isn't just about control of the Taiwan economy. It is rooted in culture, in that China has been a unified country for 2200 years, ever since the Qin (Ch'in) dynasty (where the name China comes from). It is a nationalistic, even sentimental thing that all Chinese share a desire to see their home country as one. Westerners don't have this tie anywhere as strong as those of us from the Middle Kingdom, so I don't expect you to understand it.

Reunification would mean greater morale for all Chinese people throughout the world. It would see increased culture, increased trade between the different economies of the Chinese people, and relative peace among the Chinese.

I hope that in the short term, All of China will participate in the Beijing Olympics as one country.

didn't China breakup at the end of each dynasty period since the beginning of recorded history in China, including several times in the last 2200 years?

Usually these interregums only ended when a strong government reconquered everybody else... and that includes the Nationalists who beat up the Warlords (well, many of them), and the Communists who beat up and drove out the Nationalists, plus the Manchus who conquered China after the collapse of the last native dynasty, not to mention the Ming Dynasty and going back to the Chi'in Dynasty.

Generally, the locals weren't consulted much, even by the Communists when they drove into southern China in 1948.

wow, never been called a neo con before, and to think I voted for Kerry...Read the book by George Kennedy "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" to get an excellent and critical view of how hegemony works and why no one has really ever had it in the modern age except for extremely brief periods of time.

I am not calling you a neo-con, but rather merely stated you represented the neo-con position that the U.S. should not allow regional powers to rise. The Kennedy book is excellent, if somewhat obvious, in making the point that all empires come to an end. A point Oswald Spengler made in The Decline of the West more than a half century earlier. I am less impressed by Kennedy's doubts about hegemony in the modern world, given that there has never been such disparity between the relative strengths of the world's most powerful nation and its closest rivals as exists today between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Chinese people may not share much love for the Communists, for whatever reason. But they do love China. That's why to this date there is the Republic of China, and the Peoples Republic of China.

Reunification does not mean turning Taiwan into a communist country. What it Does mean is that they would no longer recognise the Republic of China, but the Peoples Republic of China as the legitimate governing authority of the nation. This would probably mean a nice new flag, easier movement between the mainland and the Taiwan islands, and some return of certain cultural artifacts to the appropriate places throughout the Mainland, but not much else.

The issue is not if Taiwan wants to join up with the PRC peacefully or not, the circumstances leading to this war don't really matter, beyond who fired the first shot. The question we are pondering is a question of who would win the war.

And the answer to that would be China. Even if, by some miracle, America managed to defeat China, the Chinese people in America will just run for office, and end up ruling over America from the White house.

The issue is not if Taiwan wants to join up with the PRC peacefully or not, the circumstances leading to this war don't really matter, beyond who fired the first shot. The question we are pondering is a question of who would win the war.

Actually that question is too narrow and uninteresting. It is a wargame question.

And the answer to that would be China. Even if, by some miracle, America managed to defeat China, the Chinese people in America will just run for office, and end up ruling over America from the White house.

Not when they're the minority they cant. It would be like an American trying to become the communist party boss in the PRC. No chance in hell.

Actually that question is too narrow and uninteresting. It is a wargame question.

Yet it is the topic of the discussion, if you dont want to discuss the wargame scenario then there are plenty of other threads you could discuss in.

It is rooted in culture, in that China has been a unified country for 2200 years, ever since the Qin (Ch'in) dynasty (where the name China comes from).

:confused: You cannot possibly be saying that China has remained united for 2200 years, can you? If you are, you are ignorant of huge chunks of history: the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, the Period of Sixteen Kingdoms, The Southern and Northern Dynasties, etc. etc. etc. up til the modern de facto division with Taiwan, that is the basis for the scenario under discussion.

Ok, given your terms of a Neutral field of Battle.
I give it to the PRC making the United States sue for Peace.
I simply agree with the old maxim that Infantry wins wars.

I would add to that maxim in that it is the intellegent application of force that wins wars.

You can win a war against a superior force if that force can be starved and cut off from ammunition and cover if you allow them a retreat - they will as was stated elsewhere, sue for peace.

I am not calling you a neo-con, but rather merely stated you represented the neo-con position that the U.S. should not allow regional powers to rise. The Kennedy book is excellent, if somewhat obvious, in making the point that all empires come to an end. A point Oswald Spengler made in The Decline of the West more than a half century earlier. I am less impressed by Kennedy's doubts about hegemony in the modern world, given that there has never been such disparity between the relative strengths of the world's most powerful nation and its closest rivals as exists today between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

glad you read it, the Spengler book was good too, although its been 20 years since I read it.

I think we have to say the clearly China (the PRC) is a regional power now, its in the US interest to ensure that it doesn't become a superpower until its either democrat, more stable (or both preferably) or falls apart (a likely possibility as well)

And yes there has been, the US was RELATIVELY more powerful in 1946 than it is today (economically), and only militarily does it have more power than any likely combination of opponents (although Britain had this power at sea from 1803 until 1914).

The PLA just like any other communist army looks large and impressive on paper but is really poorly trained and underequipped. While a US invasion of mainland China would probably result in guerilla warfare on a scale worse than Vietnam or Iraq, the Chinese would have a hard time invading another country. It would be difficult to supply such a huge military force to far outside of mainland China.

:confused: You cannot possibly be saying that China has remained united for 2200 years, can you? If you are, you are ignorant of huge chunks of history: the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, the Period of Sixteen Kingdoms, The Southern and Northern Dynasties, etc. etc. etc. up til the modern de facto division with Taiwan, that is the basis for the scenario under discussion.

Neolithica's choice of words may be off a tad, but the essential idea is correct. Dispite periods of civil war, chaos, and rule by factions and war lords, China is the oldest continually existing state in the world.

I think that was the intent of the post.

I think a war between the U.S. and China is pretty remote given the amount of trade the two countries carry on with each other. That's usually a sign that the two nations do not consider the other an enemy. If your asking about a future war you have to develop a plausible scenario. The area most likely to be a cause of conflict would be Taiwan. I don't see the Chinese Navy or Air Force being much of a threat to a U.S. naval shielding force. China would lose that war hands down given the U.S. superiority in ships and technology. The U.S. would probably not invade China, since it would be hard to see what the U.S. would gain from a ground war. Our recent involvements with the notable blunder of Iraq did not involve using ground forces to seize territory. Serbia surrendered after a month long bombing attack. Even Iraq's military was pretty much destroyed by the air campaign in two wars. I don't see China doing very well against such a campaign.

The US has a major advantage in all areas except population. The US would surround China's borders, have Russia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Canada and most of Europe as Allies. China could possibly gain some of the Middle East as allies against the US Alliance but it will not be enough. China would implode upon itself. If China attempted a attack on the US, the best they could do is shutoff oil supplies causing transportation problems for civilians. Any attack on the mainland would be met by the millions of American gun owners as well as the most advanced military in the world. Either way, the United States would triumph over a China attack or stronghold. The Winner would be no one. Even with a total US victory, the casualties would be in the billions and in 50 years, there would be another war because people will never learn that death is not the answer to world peace. Dammit, I feel like giving them the discovery of my lifetime and letting them kill everyone on the planet. People do not deserve technology and I certainly will never allow my discoveries to fall into the hands of humans. I would never forgive myself for unleashing the human race upon the rest of the galaxy.

I would add to that maxim in that it is the intellegent application of force that wins wars.

You can win a war against a superior force if that force can be starved and cut off from ammunition and cover if you allow them a retreat - they will as was stated elsewhere, sue for peace.
aye, let's think Alexander with this one. Elite, well equipped troops against huge armies of conscripts with so-so equipment.

And the answer to that would be China. Even if, by some miracle, America managed to defeat China, the Chinese people in America will just run for office, and end up ruling over America from the White house.
this is assuming that the Chinese in America are loyal to the PRC...
WHICH THEY AREN'T.

Actually that question is too narrow and uninteresting. It is a wargame question.
and that's precisely what this question is! Read the title! Hypothetical US vs. China War! That's what we're talking about!

glad you read it, the Spengler book was good too, although its been 20 years since I read it.

I think we have to say the clearly China (the PRC) is a regional power now, its in the US interest to ensure that it doesn't become a superpower until its either democrat, more stable (or both preferably) or falls apart (a likely possibility as well)

And yes there has been, the US was RELATIVELY more powerful in 1946 than it is today (economically), and only militarily does it have more power than any likely combination of opponents (although Britain had this power at sea from 1803 until 1914).

Ah, a person knowledgable in history.

I conceed the point that the U.S. was relatively more economically powerful in the 1950s than it is today. However, the growing disparity between the wealthiest nations, such as the U.S., and the poorest nations has never been greater. Perhaps you have read David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, in which he points out that 250 years ago the gap between the richest and poorest nations was roughly 5-1, while today that gap is approximately 400-1.

It is this growing wealth, both absolute and relative, that allows the U.S. to spend 8 times as much as China on its military budget and create an army unrivaled in history in both its absolute power, as well as its relative strength, to its nearest competitors.

Even at the peak of British power, during the Victorian era, its nearest rivals (the United States, Germany, France, and Russia) were relatively much closer in strength than are the Europeans, China, or Russia with the U.S. In fact much of Britain's power was achieved through its diplomatic game of balancing and offsetting rival powers.

and that's precisely what this question is! Read the title! Hypothetical US vs. China War! That's what we're talking about!

Yes, I know. But it is because that topic is so narrow and, ultimately, uninteresting that the discussion has spead out into other, more meaningful discussions.

Go with the flow.

Yes, I know. But it is because that topic is so narrow and, ultimately, uninteresting that the discussion has spead out into other, more meaningful discussions.

Go with the flow.
I find the topic perfectly interesting. Stick with it.

Ok, given your terms of a Neutral field of Battle.
I give it to the PRC making the United States sue for Peace.
I simply agree with the old maxim that Infantry wins wars.
Nominally true, but as big as china's armies are, FAE devices would be our best option. You can bet we would start churning out some big ones if war started too. Enough of those and their infantry would be toast.

Ah, a person knowledgable in history.

I conceed the point that the U.S. was relatively more economically powerful in the 1950s than it is today. However, the growing disparity between the wealthiest nations, such as the U.S., and the poorest nations has never been greater. Perhaps you have read David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, in which he points out that 250 years ago the gap between the richest and poorest nations was roughly 5-1, while today that gap is approximately 400-1.

It is this growing wealth, both absolute and relative, that allows the U.S. to spend 8 times as much as China on its military budget and create an army unrivaled in history in both its absolute power, as well as its relative strength, to its nearest competitors.

Even during the peak of British power, during the Victorian era, its nearest rivals (the United States, Germany, France, and Russia) were relatively much closer in strength than are the Europe, China, or Russia with the U.S. In fact much of Britain's power achieved through its diplomatic game of balancing and offsetting rival powers.

good points all...
and I will have to find that book you mentioned.. havent read that one yet (been reading historical anthropology and British naval history instead lately)

the North vs South gap is very troubling, and the current administration in Washington (sigh heavily) doesn't seem to have paid any attention to that gap (which is a contributing factor to the current war)

it is the root of the problem between Palestine and Israel as well (besides old hatreds)

but I think, should the EU ever decide to, it could rival the US in real military power, (well, assuming it can put aside a long history of nationalism).... and China could potentially as well, hence the concern over China as a Superpower.

Right now only one nation, Russia, has the capability to destroy the US as a unified and even biological entity, while only three other nations (PRC, UK, and France) could inflicted crippling damage (in all of these cases with nuclear weapons only and at the cost of their own national survival).... that is unlikely to change much except for the real possibility China could bring itself up to Russia's former power and Russia may fall relatively to the French in power (those old missiles are wearing out fast in Russia)

And that is the reason the US will continue to watch China warily, along with the geo political reasons I mentioned earlier.

Neolithica's choice of words may be off a tad, but the essential idea is correct. Dispite periods of civil war, chaos, and rule by factions and war lords, China is the oldest continually existing state in the world.

I think that was the intent of the post.

By that logic, Rome/Italy would be a contender...

By that logic, Rome/Italy would be a contender...

Actually, no.

The Roman Empire completely disappeared after the 4th and 5th centuries, divided up among various barbarian tribes. In later years it came under the rule of Popes, the Holy Roman Emperors (who were actually German), as well as various Normans and Saracens. Later the city-states of Venice, Florence, and Genoa came to dominate. Throughout the Middle Ages and later it was fragmented and eventually, during the reign of Napoleon, came under the control of the French for a period of time. An actual Italian nation did not appear until 1870. Of course over that period of time the language changed from Latin to Italian.

The Chinese on the other hand have had a continuously existing Chinese civilization for 2,200 years. Yes, there have been periods of instability and even conquest by Mongols and Manchurians, but always order was restored, the dynasties re-emerged, and even conquorers were absorbed. Through it all China, and its culture, have remained. One could even argue that the current communist government is more closely related to a traditional imperial dynasty than it is to Soviet style government.

lol cant believe so many people are going for the US they have so many debts allreay. China is very strong, all countries are moving their production more and more into china they are huge and powerfull. they also have heaps of nukes. CHina would also be supported by korea they burn american flags on the street americans dont realise how unpopular they are in the world, their news cencors all teh dirt on their country which still gets shown in all other countries. so many people hate america now france and most of europe would be more inclined to help china than the USA theyd go down so bad even with the wars crimes they always commit and dirty tricks, they would be finnished, not a chance

What it comes down to is this. China's army is completly irrelevent because their navy is soviet surplus. They can't take Taiwan because they can't get to it. Furthermore, even without the assistance of the USAF, Taiwan has air superiorty over the ROC. (for more on the military power balance between Taiwan and ROC check here. http://www.comw.org/pda/nolt99.pdf) The Chinese navy and air force would be eliminated within days of the attack, leaving the almost inconcievably powerful combined airforces and navies of Taiwan, Japan, the US, the EU, SK, Australia, and anyone else who wanted some of the loot, to completly demolish the entire manufacturing base of China without risk. The Chinese army either surrenders or is bombed off the face of the earth. Any nuclear or chemical attacks by China on Taiwan are answered with nuclear attacks by Taiwan on Beijing and Singapore. Regional governments in China are more powerful relative to the centeral government than anyone gives them credit for and would rebel if they thought that the government's policy was going to get themselves, their family, and their entire province killed. A strike to the 6 rivers gorge dam, or against the Chinese transportation system starves China's entire urban population. Noone would need to invade China because they would have to offer an unconditional surrender within months.
here's an illustration
China :mp5: versus US :sniper: = China :headbang:

good debate all... going to bed here..

the only Western State with the same kind of continuity that China has is Egypt, and to a lesser extent Greece and Iraq (isn't that ironic)

Rome is a distant 5th place, followed by the Germanic culture (which includes all of Western Europe) but that has been changed to the point that it is unrecognizable by our predecessors (I am including North American culture there too).

As a political state China has frequently fragmented and has been knit back together (cultural factors play a big role, as does military force and economic dominance)

I think that you've all forgotten a few major points. The Chinese people aren't limited to just the Motherland, we're all over the world. There are enough Chinese people in Australia to cause a lot of problems for the Australian Government if Australia ever decided to join any such war against China. Likewise in America, you'll find Chinese-heritage people committing so-called terrorist actions within American borders. That's an advantage that America most definitely does Not have in China, and would effectively neutralise any advantage America may have.

Long Live China!

Advantage? Pffft. In the event that China was the aggressor, i doubt anyone would revolt other than the occasional overly-patriotic internet blogger.

But if it was the other way around, sure they would revolt. But this wouldnt be an advantage for China, just an annoyance for the US/other allies which would swiftly be eradicated as the Chinese populations are concentrated in small areas (read: Chinatown).

And as for Australia, you'd be surprised how fast dormant xenophobic tendencies from the past can re-surface.

What you forget is that most of what you use is made in asia. all they gotta do it stop sending it out and USA would be stuffed

lol cant believe so many people are going for the US they have so many debts allreay. China is very strong, all countries are moving their production more and more into china they are huge and powerfull. they also have heaps of nukes. CHina would also be supported by korea they burn american flags on the street americans dont realise how unpopular they are in the world, their news cencors all teh dirt on their country which still gets shown in all other countries. so many people hate america now france and most of europe would be more inclined to help china than the USA theyd go down so bad even with the wars crimes they always commit and dirty tricks, they would be finnished, not a chance

China is strong? By what do you mean, they are only stronger in manpower.

All counties are moving their production to China, yes, but that can be rectified and relocated to another poor country.

The US' stockpiles of nuclear weapons make Chinas look like childs play.

Europe would likely side with the US if China attacked Taiwan. Although it may not be in actual personell terms, but supplies, bases, aid and money.

What you forget is that most of what you use is made in asia. all they gotta do it stop sending it out and USA would be stuffed
The US has the latent manufacturing capacity to pick up the slack in a VERY short amount of time. If we were to be totally cut off from China for some reason or another, then we'd be able to employ and train the 5.4% of unemployed Americans in the space of three-four months. Not to mention the fact that American factories do not run at 100%, ever.

Many of the goods in China are consumer goods, as opposed to capital. Japan is far more important as far as capital is concerned, and the US is highly capable of capital production as well.

China on the other hand relies on foreign experts to set up its industries. My uncle is one of them. He has been in Shanghai teaching the Chinese how to run a vacuum cleaner plant.

If these foreign experts leave all of a sudden a huge portion of china's knowledge pool would be gone.

China is strong? By what do you mean, they are only stronger in manpower.

All counties are moving their production to China, yes, but that can be rectified and relocated to another poor country.

The US' stockpiles of nuclear weapons make Chinas look like childs play.

Europe would likely side with the US if China attacked Taiwan. Although it may not be in actual personell terms, but supplies, bases, aid and money.

no one likes americans, they just like themselves
i dont like either countries, it would be very bad for us if china would win i imagine but i just think china will win

lol cant believe so many people are going for the US they have so many debts allreay. China is very strong, all countries are moving their production more and more into china they are huge and powerfull. they also have heaps of nukes. CHina would also be supported by korea they burn american flags on the street americans dont realise how unpopular they are in the world, their news cencors all teh dirt on their country which still gets shown in all other countries. so many people hate america now france and most of europe would be more inclined to help china than the USA theyd go down so bad even with the wars crimes they always commit and dirty tricks, they would be finnished, not a chance

You must also consider the flip side. Maybe you are only being shown what your media wants you to see. After all, the US is one of the few places where the media isn't STATE CONTROLLED.

Have you ever heard of the fear that Koreans have towards China? Koreans were forced to Kow-tow to the Chinese for centuries, and they didn't like that one bit. It's still burned into their national consciousness. Just like a despisal of Germans is burned into the Russian national consciousness.

Production can easily be shifted to India, or even back to the US and Europe. It really isn't that hard.

Chastmere, you forget that it would take a long time for a poor country to churn out goods at the production rate and quantity that China manages. Even if China lost, the economic effects would be felt across most of the world that relies on Chinese Products. Im not sure if Europe or other countries would come to the help of the US because of this. Also, many of the Islamic countries would ally with the Chinese, along with possibly the African nations as well.
And remember, having a lot of manpower is a very useful thing to have

You must also consider the flip side. Maybe you are only being shown what your media wants you to see. After all, the US is one of the few places where the media isn't STATE CONTROLLED.

Have you ever heard of the fear that Koreans have towards China? Koreans were forced to Kow-tow to the Chinese for centuries, and they didn't like that one bit. It's still burned into their national consciousness. Just like a despisal of Germans is burned into the Russian national consciousness.

Production can easily be shifted to India, or even back to the US and Europe. It really isn't that hard.

lol the government in the USA doesnt controll what is shown on tv????
HAHAHAHAHA ROFL ROFL hahahaha

no one likes americans, they just like themselves
i dont like either countries, it would be very bad for us if china would win i imagine but i just think china will win
No one is a VERY strong word dearest CD_Toaster. A VERY strong word.

There is discontent against the US, but very few, barring radical islamic militants wish that America would die. Most just wish America would change its course to a more multi-lateral approach. The discontent is with American policies, not America itself.

What rules??? there are no rules saying america will win. In fact im rooting for China.

Russia is really poor but no one has ever beaten it thats where like all of them failed china is huge too it would be very hard to gain and keep controll over it

No one is a VERY strong word dearest CD_Toaster. A VERY strong word.

There is discontent against the US, but very few, barring radical islamic militants wish that America would die. Most just wish America would change its course to a more multi-lateral approach. The discontent is with American policies, not America itself.

Bush won the election, therefore it shows that the american people support the policies everyone hates which translates over to the feeling towards americans....

lol the government in the USA doesnt controll what is shown on tv????
HAHAHAHAHA ROFL ROFL hahahaha
That's correct.

The only "government run" media outlet is NPR, and that doesn't exactly toe the government line. Privately held companies, CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS, espescially CBS, don't toe the line either. They are owned by private individuals, not the government. The FCC restrains them from depicting lewd or excessively violent images, but not their content.

I know of the discontent that exists in the rest of the world. I have heard of it on the news. I have heard about Abu Ghraib. I have heard of the Arab Street. I have heard about the recent events in Mosul. I have seen images of the protests in London, Paris and Berlin. I speak limited German, and I can read German fairly well with the aid of a pocket dictionary, and I can tell you that the German news seems to be somewhat more controlled than the US.

The German government and the German media are in line, they both disagree with the war. They both desire greater German influence. They both are pro-neo socialist. Unlike the US. Where the media and the government don't always fall in line.

But this is off topic. Back to the hypothetical war with China.

Bush won the election, therefore it shows that the american people support the policies everyone hates which translates over to the feeling towards americans....
Everyone is also a very strong word. If you can find a single dissenter, then this statement is proven false.

That's correct.

The only "government run" media outlet is NPR, and that doesn't exactly toe the government line. Privately held companies, CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS, espescially CBS, don't toe the line either. They are owned by private individuals, not the government. The FCC restrains them from depicting lewd or excessively violent images, but not their content.

I know of the discontent that exists in the rest of the world. I have heard of it on the news. I have heard about Abu Ghraib. I have heard of the Arab Street. I have heard about the recent events in Mosul. I have seen images of the protests in London, Paris and Berlin. I speak limited German, and I can read German fairly well with the aid of a pocket dictionary, and I can tell you that the German news seems to be somewhat more controlled than the US.

The German government and the German media are in line, they both disagree with the war. They both desire greater German influence. They both are pro-neo socialist. Unlike the US. Where the media and the government don't always fall in line.

But this is off topic. Back to the hypothetical war with China.

yea keep telling yourself that, all the stations in the US refused to show the documentary about a war crime in Afghanistan the government doesnt openly controll it, just behind the scenes, they always talk about free speech etc but us citizens cant legally travel to cub abecause of the Communist thing and they lock up al teh communists a while back, they always talk about the "threat" of communism, but if so many people supported it how is it a threat? its just that the people in controll are afraid of it because htey loose out from it

yea keep telling yourself that, all the stations in the US refused to show the documentary about a war crime in Afghanistan the government doesnt openly controll it, just behind the scenes, they always talk about free speech etc but us citizens cant legally travel to cub abecause of the Communist thing and they lock up al teh communists a while back, they always talk about the "threat" of communism, but if so many people supported it how is it a threat? its just that the people in controll are afraid of it because htey loose out from it
anyone know what this fellow is babbling about?

Ever heard of Fahrenheit 9/11 bro?

And US citizens can legally travel to Cuba, I happen to know a girl who went there for a dance competition. Now, we cannot trade with Cuba, if that's what you mean.

The embargo on Cuba is punishment for them accepting Soviet missiles during a little thing that pushed the world to the edge of NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION called the Cuban Missile Crisis.


I also happen to know a couple of communists, and they aren't locked up.

Come back with more than just emotional appeals and propaganda.

anyone know what this fellow is babbling about?

Ever heard of Fahrenheit 9/11 bro?

And US citizens can legally travel to Cuba, I happen to know a girl who went there for a dance competition. Now, we cannot trade with Cuba, if that's what you mean.

The embargo on Cuba is punishment for them accepting Soviet missiles during a little thing that pushed the world to the edge of NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION called the Cuban Missile Crisis.


I also happen to know a couple of communists, and they aren't locked up.

it was in the 50s or soemthing when the communists were locked up there is also a movie with Jim Carey about it, Farenhaiet was kept out of most of the mainstream theaters. and travel to cuba was illegal if not anymore
http://www.usacubatravel.com/
see even look here, if you wanna go to cuba you gotta travel from canada there was also a south park episode about it

oh yea dude lets all go to cuba
http://www.destinationcuba.com/
its so easy and we are allowed to
Tico Travel™ is an authorized Travel Service Provider (TSP) by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury (license C-46986). We provide expert advice and assistance with hotel, flight and rent-a-car reservations for licensed U.S. travelers.

Under current regulations travel to Cuba is severely restricted. United States citizens and any person in the United States is subject to these restrictions, regardless of citizenship. Under these restrictions, spending money relating to Cuban travel is prohibited unless the traveler is licensed. Tico Travel™ requires that all passengers comply with all U.S. government regulations. To see if you or your organization qualifies for a general license (which does not require prior government authorization) or a specific license (which does require prior government authorization) please consult the following website:

i just came back from watchign the news, guess what i saw, riots in korea against the us it really does look liek they will side with USA against china :p

it was in the 50s or soemthing when the communists were locked up there is also a movie with Jim Carey about it, Farenhaiet was kept out of most of the mainstream theaters. and travel to cuba was illegal if not anymore
http://www.usacubatravel.com/
see even look here, if you wanna go to cuba you gotta travel from canada there was also a south park episode about it
Fahrenheit was kept out of most of the mainstream theaters? Really, because I saw it at the most mainstream theater of all. Cinemark's Tinseltown USA.

We didn't trade with Cuba during the late '50s because Castro kicked out the US companies out and would only trade with the USSR. We didn't impose the embargo until the CMC though.

Jim Carey was never in a film about Cuba. Unless you count Ace Ventura: Pet Detective because parts of it took place in Florida.

And south park is your source for info? I feel like I'm a mental midget compared to you...

Hell, your site even proves your point wrong. You can travel to Cuba. There are restrictions, but without those restrictions there might as well not be the embargo.

Your site even says that Canada offers the EASIEST way to travel to Cuba, not the only way.

Fahrenheit was kept out of most of the mainstream theaters? Really, because I saw it at the most mainstream theater of all. Cinemark's Tinseltown USA.

We didn't trade with Cuba during the late '50s because Castro kicked out the US companies out and would only trade with the USSR. We didn't impose the embargo until the CMC though.
well i wasnt sure about the thearter thing but it was kep tout of al the mainstream ones in Australia and thats like a little verison of america, america is the most overweight country in thw wrold and australia second highest so yea. but as you see the other stuff is true your cant travel ehre easiyl despite waht you say, the point is USA always talks about land of the free but clearly is not

im gonna go play some Morrowind Bloodmoon cant wait for Oblivion :)
check it out here http://www.elderscrolls.com/

peace out everyone see y'all later it was fun arguing ;)

well i wasnt sure about the thearter thing but it was kep tout of al the mainstream ones in Australia and thats like a little verison of america, america is the most overweight country in thw wrold and australia second highest so yea. but as you see the other stuff is true your cant travel ehre easiyl despite waht you say, the point is USA always talks about land of the free but clearly is not

We're not free because we restrict travel to a totalitarian state who's actions threatened our very lives? WTF MATES?

And overweightness? WTF MATES? What does this have to do with anything?

Fahrenheit was kept out of most of the mainstream theaters? Really, because I saw it at the most mainstream theater of all. Cinemark's Tinseltown USA.

We didn't trade with Cuba during the late '50s because Castro kicked out the US companies out and would only trade with the USSR. We didn't impose the embargo until the CMC though.

Jim Carey was never in a film about Cuba. Unless you count Ace Ventura: Pet Detective because parts of it took place in Florida.

And south park is your source for info? I feel like I'm a mental midget compared to you...

Hell, your site even proves your point wrong. You can travel to Cuba. There are restrictions, but without those restrictions there might as well not be the embargo.

Your site even says that Canada offers the EASIEST way to travel to Cuba, not the only way.
South Park deals with very real isssues and the Jim Carrey movies wasnt about cuba it was about the prosecution of communists in america in the 50s it was a witch hunt, you know like you americans done in salem..

im gonna go play some Morrowind Bloodmoon cant wait for Oblivion :)
check it out here http://www.elderscrolls.com/

peace out everyone see y'all later it was fun arguing ;)


Finally something we can agree on! Oblivion will rock beyond all belief! I'd better get some sleep, nearly four a.m.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

When it comes down to it boys and girls the United States Of America has the most powerful military in the known universe. Bar none.
The problem lies in politics. We've havent been faced with an enemy the calibur of China since WW2. And we all know what happened then. We became the United War Machine of America. If we were motavated to that level in this day and age, we would decimate all who opposed us. Allies or none.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
When it comes down to it boys and girls the United States Of America has the most powerful military in the known universe. Bar none.

Famous...last...words.

If we were motavated to that level in this day and age, we would decimate all who opposed us.

I'm betting they could get pretty motavated too...

In some newspapers and news magazines published in Taiwan, I seen annoymous polls of military personnel about what they would do if China really decided to invade.

Something like 70% talked about picking up a personal weapon, just waltz off the base and shoot any officer/MP/anybody that try to stop them deserting.

If this is any indicator of the attitude of the military force in Taiwan - wow.

If we were motavated to that level in this day and age, we would decimate all who opposed us. Allies or none.

Korean War, in the early 1950-ties. The scrap turned from US vs. North Korea to US vs. China.

Then China had just been devastated by years of Japanese occupation. The new Communist government had barely been in power for a few months. The state of the People's Volunteer Army (People's Liberation Army had yet to be formed) was almost hopeless, they could barely field one heavy artillery piece per division, the soldiers were armed mostly with captured Japanese rifles and a few US-supplied guns (from during WWII) floating a round. Maybe 6 grenades shared within a platoon, but thats about it.

The US Army could field a whole battery [up to 20] heavy artillery pieces support per company. They had an air force of experenced veteran pilots, with a large number of light/medium/heavy bombers. They had absolute supremacy of the air above the penisular until late 1953, or thereabouts, when Soviets started supplying the Chinese with MiG-15 aircraft.

[To be contined...]

i just came back from watchign the news, guess what i saw, riots in korea against the us it really does look liek they will side with USA against china :p

South Korean students always riot against the US being in their country. None of them remember the first Korean War. Many of those veterans who are still alive in Korea vehemently support the US being in that country. As those college students get older they stop being idealistic and they realize the threat the north poses. But it happens every year and has since the 80s. Its no surprise.

[continued from two posts above]

The naval supremacy of the US in the Korean War wasn't even seriously challenged.

Not yet, the Chinese managed to maintain a fighting stalemate mid-way along the Korea penisular until the armastice. That was fifty years ago, now they're maybe a decade behind the US in military technology, and with significant down-sizing of the US military...it might be one heck of a scrap.

US has the firepower and India and Pakistan would join against PRC! Therefore, China would lose!

Korean War, in the early 1950-ties. The scrap turned from US vs. North Korea to US vs. China.

Then China had just been devastated by years of Japanese occupation. The new Communist government had barely been in power for a few months. The state of the People's Volunteer Army (People's Liberation Army had yet to be formed) was almost hopeless, they could barely field one heavy artillery piece per division, the soldiers were armed mostly with captured Japanese rifles and a few US-supplied guns (from during WWII) floating a round. Maybe 6 grenades shared within a platoon, but thats about it.

The US Army could field a whole battery [up to 20] heavy artillery pieces support per company. They had an air force of experenced veteran pilots, with a large number of light/medium/heavy bombers. They had absolute supremacy of the air above the penisular until late 1953, or thereabouts, when Soviets started supplying the Chinese with MiG-15 aircraft.

[To be contined...]

1)MiG-15s were used from the onset of the fighting. Russian instructors flew those aircraft. It got so bad the US stopped day bombing until the F-86 Sabres could be used in sufficant numbers. Not to mention the war ends July 27th 1953...so when do the Soviets achieve air supremecy? September? When the fighting is long since over?

2)The US didnt nearly have as much arty on the ground as you claim. Mortars sure. Recoiless rifles of course. But your probably mistaking the fact that in the early months of the conflict it got so bad and ROK/US troops were retreating so much arty units found themselves being placed on the frontline against DPRK tank divisions.

3)The DPRK had a lot of equipment and not enough manpower that got supplied by the Soviets for their incursion into the south. When the Chinese crossed they got some of this equipment still more came from the Soviets. The Chinese used as many troops as possible that they could muster. Keep in mind though that even with MacArthurs victories across the penninsula the US Army was but a shadow of its WWII self in its own right. Trumans Sec of War had trimmed the military budget by leaps and bounds. So its not like the US was an unstopable juggernaught.

US has the firepower and India and Pakistan would join against PRC! Therefore, China would lose!

Pakistan and India fighting together-doubtful

[continued from two posts above]

The naval supremacy of the US in the Korean War wasn't even seriously challenged.

Not yet, the Chinese managed to maintain a fighting stalemate mid-way along the Korea penisular until the armastice. That was fifty years ago, now they're maybe a decade behind the US in military technology, and with significant down-sizing of the US military...it might be one heck of a scrap.

A decade behind is being generous if your talking about their naval aspect. I wont even mention their Han SSBN, and no credible fighting navy would consider it a threat either. A decade behind is also being generous if your talking about the PLAF. If your comparing their new aircraft to such planes as the F-16 and the F-15 well then my friend that still puts them several decades behind us.(Keep in mind the 16 and 15 arent exactly brand new designs anymore).

As for on the ground, a lot of their stuff is copied from the Soviets. So in a sense..the Soviets are keeping up with us out of tradition. Even then some of the Soviet stuff was never as advanced as US equipment. But hey everyones got their own opinions on this issue.

Pakistan and India fighting together-doubtful

Not really. Both are still pissed that while they were fighting each other for Kashmir a couple of decades ago the Chinese stepped in and invaded the north eastern area. Both sides have a long memory when it comes to that stuff.

The US and China fight a war over Tiawanese independence? I think it would be a battle of wills as much as military conflict. The "winner" would be the side that was most committed to the war, the side willing to sacrifice the most to "win". To close to call.

Not really. Both are still pissed that while they were fighting each other for Kashmir a couple of decades ago the Chinese stepped in and invaded the north eastern area. Both sides have a long memory when it comes to that stuff.

But they would have to consider the big picture which is, will this weaken one side over the other and in turn cause invason into the weaker nation. If america lost china would be weakened and therefore pakistan and india are the regional powers and would undoubtly square-off. So if they were involed they might loose vital resourse's and maybe a hand over there neighbor.

But they would have to consider the big picture which is, will this weaken one side over the other and in turn cause invason into the weaker nation. If america lost china would be weakened and therefore pakistan and india are the regional powers and would undoubtly square-off. So if they were involed they might loose vital resourse's and maybe a hand over there neighbor.

Well with relations improving to the point their playing cricket with each other again I doubt either side is planning on a massed invasion of the other. If the Chinese were to step out of line you could be damn sure than even Bangladesh would contribute forces. Keep in mind India or Pakistan would play the "your next card". The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[continued from two posts above]

The naval supremacy of the US in the Korean War wasn't even seriously challenged.

Not yet, the Chinese managed to maintain a fighting stalemate mid-way along the Korea penisular until the armastice. That was fifty years ago, now they're maybe a decade behind the US in military technology, and with significant down-sizing of the US military...it might be one heck of a scrap.

And it wouldn't be seriously challenged in a US vs. China war either

Well with relations improving to the point their playing cricket with each other again I doubt either side is planning on a massed invasion of the other. If the Chinese were to step out of line you could be damn sure than even Bangladesh would contribute forces. Keep in mind India or Pakistan would play the "your next card". The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Despite there playing cricket together it's the same divisional line dividing them and you can bet the hardliners have'nt forgot. Of course this thread is all hypothecial and many sencerios could devolop out of conflict with china and america, therefore we would all just have to wait and see.

Despite there playing cricket together it's the same divisional line dividing them and you can bet the hardliners have'nt forgot. Of course this thread is all hypothecial and many sencerios could devolop out of conflict with china and america, therefore we would all just have to wait and see.
but they are getting back on speaking terms.

As best as I can tell the most logical answer is:
The Invader Loses.
If America tried to take it to the Chinese they would be smashed.

However the Chinese could never hope to survive an attempted U.S. invasion.

So this is a case where the Defender has the advantage.
Or do I sound completely off?

i think US would need to be swift. Can you imagine if there was a chinese draft? true they would have no training, but one man with one gun can only take down so many crazy foot soldiers. charging in the hundreds.

i think US would need to be swift. Can you imagine if there was a chinese draft? true they would have no training, but one man with one gun can only take down so many crazy foot soldiers. charging in the hundreds.
One of the key concepts we've been getting at is that the US wouldn't invade China proper. We'd just bash their navy and air force in and sit around until the nation is stragled by a blockade.

but they are getting back on speaking terms.

Yeah they are :)
But they still have a long way to go,hopfully in a short time.

we can only hope. a war there is in nobody's interests.

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

From the page: "the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense."

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

From the page: "the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense."

Actually it does. Shooting first with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which, I might add have a longer range. A MUCH longer range. The variant of the Tomahawk with the shortest range is 700 Nautical miles. As opposed to the Sunburn's 100 statute mile range.

The US navy wouldn't fight from in close where it can take damage, that's why we built weapons with such huge range, it would fight from far off.

well i wasnt sure about the thearter thing but it was kep tout of al the mainstream ones in Australia and thats like a little verison of america, america is the most overweight country in thw wrold and australia second highest so yea. but as you see the other stuff is true your cant travel ehre easiyl despite waht you say, the point is USA always talks about land of the free but clearly is not

Umm I actually saw it in Hoyts just the most mainstream AUSTRALIAN movie theatre at the momment.

I think they would probably fight each other to a very bloody stand still. The fact that China is about five times as big as the US and can just keep throwing guys into the front lines would off set the slightly better technology of the US. In the end, soldiers fight and win wars. I think it would be basically a repeat of 1953, where it reached a stalemate and nothing changed.

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

From the page: "the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense."

umm,no, not true... and a questionable source....there are many, many better ones on anti ship missiles and defensive systems...

the CIWS is designed to shoot down missiles like this, EW is designed to divert them, the Standard 2 missile can shoot them down, and for that matter, a carrier task force can launch aircraft to destroy the attacking ship before it can launch, while Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles are far more reliable and have similiar ranges... the old game of offensive vs defensive systems continues... its about a draw at the moment

umm,no, not true... and a questionable source....there are many, many better ones on anti ship missiles and defensive systems...

the CIWS is designed to shoot down missiles like this, EW is designed to divert them, the Standard 2 missile can shoot them down, and for that matter, a carrier task force can launch aircraft to destroy the attacking ship before it can launch, while Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles are far more reliable and have similiar ranges... the old game of offensive vs defensive systems continues... its about a draw at the moment

The source is not only questionable but dead wrong. The U.S.S. Stark was an O.H. Perry class Frigate. They dont carry AEGIS Systems. Any ships that were in the area were only non AEGIS equipped vessels. The Arleigh Brukes werent put out to sea until the early nineties and the Ticons with AEGIS were all commissioned after this incident. So in a sense an O.H. Perry class which main task is ASW Warfare in the first place was damaged by a pair of sea skimming missiles..no surprise there.

Not like it matters..I doubt we'd send one Frigate against the entire PLAN.