NationStates Jolt Archive

The other day I was reading about China's power i couldn't believe that in five years time China would claim to be the world's greatest superpower.

There were some statistics that made me open my mouth in horror, evey second that passes a new chinese is born! Damn that is really weird, but then don't judge me as a racist fanatic ( i was banned because of my derrogative expressions ) i'm not against chinese, i'm against their dictatorship, that isn't communist anymore, that's a corrupt dictatorship and should be removed immediatly. China should be invaded and dismembered to ensure the safety of our western civilization!!!

Now let us supose my worst fears became true, what would happen if chinese really took the power?

Are you assuming that they beat us in some sort of war or something else? Cause if they tried to go to war with us we would either win or they would gain a pyrrhic victory which would most certainly leave their country in the throes of a civil war or some other sort of uprising. That, of course, assumes the conflict didn't go nuclear.

It depends on what kind of question you're asking here. If you mean, 'could China beat the US in an arms race?' Yeah, they probably could. However, I don't see anyone annihilating the mainland US any time....ever. The US has something no other civilization in human history has ever acheived: we can end it all. Whether we would or not is a different question, but the possibility of some NORAD cheif deciding to end all life on earth because he doesn't like what's going on is too large to discount if you're an invading force.

No one in their right mind would try to invade the mainland US. Ever.

Are you assuming that they beat us in some sort of war or something else? Cause if they tried to go to war with us we would either win or they would gain a pyrrhic victory which would most certainly leave their country in the throes of a civil war or some other sort of uprising. That, of course, assumes the conflict didn't go nuclear.

I'm not assuming any war, what I saw was economics, they have a good army I won't deny it but they don't have US tech so it would really be difficult for them to sustain a conflict, because Europe would want some action as well, and North Korea would help them perhaps the russian would help china.

In an economical way they will beat US within the next five years, rest assured I tremble at the very thought of that.

I'm not assuming any war, what I saw was economics, they have a good army I won't deny it but they don't have US tech so it would really be difficult for them to sustain a conflict, because Europe would want some action as well, and North Korea would help them perhaps the russian would help china.

In an economical way they will beat US within the next five years, rest assured I tremble at the very thought of that.
The only thing I'm worried about re: China's economic development is a possible conflict with India. As the populations in China and India grow more affluent, the demand for resources will be astronomical.

Aside from that, I can see no reason to be worried about China's growth.

Nuclear power insures soveriegnty. Why? Because it means no war will ever be fought on your soil for any reason. Ever. That's why we are fighting in the Middle East and not in North Korea. That's why the Cold War was fought as skirmishes in the territories the Soviets were trying to take instead of actually invading the legitimate soviet claims. And it's why the United States doesn't want other nations gaining nuclear power. The more countries with nuclear weapons, the fewer battlegrounds there are, and the less money we can spend on our military.

If there is a war with China, it will be fought in the Pacific and in the Middle East..and it will end much like the first two World Wars...and we won't be calling any deserts a "quagmire" (quagmire means swamp).

In an economical way they will beat US within the next five years, rest assured I tremble at the very thought of that.
Yes and no. The question is is how long can they remain at the pace they're moving with the inherent imbalance in their system. It makes the money difference in the US between poor and rich look like a joke. Sooner or later, the peasants will get pissed off.

Never say never!

Actually...

I would greatly appreciate it if the United States started soberly thinking of China as a real threat.

Why? What happened at the end of the Cold War? The United States over-extended and started picking on every other nations and all of his or her siblings...

A real enemy, a strong enemy would allow us something to focus our military on, even if there was no actual state of war, and would prevent our presidents and congressmen from wasting our troops and military spending on useless skirmishes in every corner of the globe...a military rivalry with a powerful nation (similar to the cold war) would ultimately save American lives...

Nuclear power insures soveriegnty. Why? Because it means no war will ever be fought on your soil for any reason. Ever.

That is only true if the other side does not also have the same nuclear capability. Mutually Assured Destruction means that the nuclear weapons basically cancel each other out. Neither side will launch because they know it will end life on both countries. As long as there is life, there is hope. Defeat and occupation is better than the destruction of the whole country. An occupied country can rise to overthrow their oppressors, a country devastated by nuclear war cannot even support life. Launching nuclear weapons in a M.A.D. situation is the same as setting off nuclear weapons on your own land, and if you destroy your own land, then what were you fighting for? There is no one with half a brain who would choose to destroy their own country rather than face the prospect of defeat. People who have the capacity to launch nuclear weapons typically have more than half a brain.

It depends on what kind of question you're asking here. If you mean, 'could China beat the US in an arms race?' Yeah, they probably could. However, I don't see anyone annihilating the mainland US any time....ever. The US has something no other civilization in human history has ever acheived: we can end it all. Whether we would or not is a different question, but the possibility of some NORAD cheif deciding to end all life on earth because he doesn't like what's going on is too large to discount if you're an invading force.

No one in their right mind would try to invade the mainland US. Ever.

All life on Earth? What the hell are you talking about?

A Teller-Ulam Thermonuclear Fussion Warhead has a blast radius of 4500 metres.

π(4500)^2
π20250000
63617198 m^2
= 63.61 km^2 blast area.

The US has a total of 13500 nukes. Assuming they're all the most powerfull type they make they would only have enough to generate:

(63.61)(13500)

858735 km^2 of destruction.

The earth has a land area of 150000000 km^2,

150000000/858735
174.6

The US would have to increase they're nuclear arsenal by at least 174.6 times in order to destroy all life on earth (and that's assumeing that no one on earth is in a plane or on a boat at the time). So what you said was B.S..

All life on Earth? What the hell are you talking about?


The US would have to increase they're nuclear arsenal by at least 174.6 times in order to destroy all life on earth (and that's assumeing that no one on earth is in a plane or on a boat at the time). So what you said was B.S..

I assume that you have heard of the theories of the effects of a major use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear winter and Nuclear Autumn are considered high likelihoods and the seience involved was pretty solid.

But that requires a major nuclear war of course. The US does have the power to literally destroy any society on Earth at will, or even all of them, by simply destroying every city over 500,000 elsewhere on the planet and would still have a sizeable reserve left over. Not that we would need it at that point.

Earth isn't flat, and neither are explosions.

All life on Earth? What the hell are you talking about?

A Teller-Ulam Thermonuclear Fussion Warhead has a blast radius of 4500 metres.

π(4500)^2
π20250000
63617198 m^2
= 63.61 km^2 blast area.

The US has a total of 13500 nukes. Assuming they're all the most powerfull type they make they would only have enough to generate:

(63.61)(13500)

858735 km^2 of destruction.

The earth has a land area of 150000000 km^2,

150000000/858735
174.6

The US would have to increase they're nuclear arsenal by at least 174.6 times in order to destroy all life on earth (and that's assumeing that no one on earth is in a plane or on a boat at the time). So what you said was B.S..

Not considering fallout and other effects upon the environment caused by a nuclear winter.

Now, not all life will be destroyed. Deep-ocean dwelling creatures might not, as they are not effected by the surface in any significant way. However, tectonic plate movement is a factor which could have adverse effects.

Blast radius should be least of your worries with a nuclear device.

I assume that you have heard of the theories of the effects of a major use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear winter and Nuclear Autumn are considered high likelihoods and the seience involved was pretty solid.

But that requires a major nuclear war of course. The US does have the power to literally destroy any society on Earth at will, or even all of them, by simply destroying every city over 500,000 elsewhere on the planet and would still have a sizeable reserve left over. Not that we would need it at that point.

That's true, but fussion warheads are different. There's no fission of high mass particles so there's no real release of pions or other particles that would create a massive fallout. And I have no coubt that they could bomb every city over 500000, but I don't thye couldn't actualy destroy them completely unless they devote several nukes to each one. The city I live in has a population of just under 600000 and one of these nukes detonated in the exact perecft spot would still only kill about half the population.

Edit: the first part goes for the post right above this one as well.

The basic truth is China has signed their own death warrant. The more economic freedom the grant the people, the more open the society becomes, the more the government will have to give up political control. At Tiananmen Square was not a failure, rather it was a success! The Communist government has only delayed its success. Remember, the Olympics are coming to China, along with the Worlds media!
And to boot, no one in the world spends as much on the military as the US of A! Not even close. So, while China may gain economic superiority, we will remain the big kid on the block!!! Yippee, Ice Cream for Everyone!!!!

That's true, but fussion warheads are different. There's no fission of high mass particles so there's no real release of pions or other particles that would create a massive fallout. And I have no coubt that they could bomb every city over 500000, but I don't thye couldn't actualy destroy them completely unless they devote several nukes to each one. The city I live in has a population of just under 600000 and one of these nukes detonated in the exact perecft spot would still only kill about half the population.

Edit: the first part goes for the post right above this one as well.

for the effects of such a disatrous attack, look at Japan and Germany at the end of World War II.... would either have recovered anywhere as quickly without US aid? That is highly doubtful. You don't have to kill everyone to effectively destroy a city. You just have to kill about half of them and make the place an unliveable desert. A nuke does that.

As far as fallout goes... look up the effects of atmospheric testing in Australia and North America during the 1950s and early 1960s. Most of them were airbursts, and relatively small yield, and spread out in frequency. Unlike what would have happened during a major exchange between the US and Soviet Union during the bad old days of the Cold War.

Actually...

I would greatly appreciate it if the United States started soberly thinking of China as a real threat.

Why? What happened at the end of the Cold War? The United States over-extended and started picking on every other nations and all of his or her siblings...

A real enemy, a strong enemy would allow us something to focus our military on, even if there was no actual state of war, and would prevent our presidents and congressmen from wasting our troops and military spending on useless skirmishes in every corner of the globe...a military rivalry with a powerful nation (similar to the cold war) would ultimately save American lives...
That reminds me of my Western Civ teacher's words the other day. "The reason I said that I miss the days of Russia, was because back then you knew who your enemies were." If we look at China as a real threat, I think we could get things more organized.

He did say it would kill everyone on earth...

But nonetheless, 13500 nukes...it'd only take 1 per major city...then you still have plenty to spread out...and seriously, you'd need like 1, maybe 2 for the entire African continent...

The basic truth is China has signed their own death warrant. The more economic freedom the grant the people, the more open the society becomes, the more the government will have to give up political control. At Tiananmen Square was not a failure, rather it was a success! The Communist government has only delayed its success. Remember, the Olympics are coming to China, along with the Worlds media!
And to boot, no one in the world spends as much on the military as the US of A! Not even close. So, while China may gain economic superiority, we will remain the big kid on the block!!! Yippee, Ice Cream for Everyone!!!!

a recent riot that happened Thursday in China might be an alarm bell on how cohesive China really is. Analysts are wondering whether the rich poor divide is going to become a serious issue as well. Can China really hold together 1.3 Billion people, who all have rising expectations. Rising expectations are the traditional reasons revolutions occur in the 20th Century at least. Will that be the reason China disintegrates, assuming it does?

That reminds me of my Western Civ teacher's words the other day. "The reason I said that I miss the days of Russia, was because back then you knew who your enemies were." If we look at China as a real threat, I think we could get things more organized.
Not only would we be more organized, but we'd be less of a target for terrorists because we'd be so distracted with China that we wouldn't be riling the terrorists up and getting them pissed at us in the first part...

And hopefully the CIA could please keep their hands off my dream-war with China...seriously...I think the CIA has done way more harm toward the US than it has helped it...

He did say it would kill everyone on earth...

But nonetheless, 13500 nukes...it'd only take 1 per major city...then you still have plenty to spread out...and seriously, you'd need like 1, maybe 2 for the entire African continent...

there are a lot more large cities in Africa than just 1 or 2

There's a difference between large and major.

As far as fallout goes... look up the effects of atmospheric testing in Australia and North America during the 1950s and early 1960s. Most of them were airbursts, and relatively small yield, and spread out in frequency. Unlike what would have happened during a major exchange between the US and Soviet Union during the bad old days of the Cold War.

That was before the Tellar-Ulam design. T-U's don't procude even a small percent of the radiation produced by Gadget of Trinity designs.

The basic truth is China has signed their own death warrant. The more economic freedom the grant the people, the more open the society becomes, the more the government will have to give up political control. At Tiananmen Square was not a failure, rather it was a success! The Communist government has only delayed its success. Remember, the Olympics are coming to China, along with the Worlds media!
And to boot, no one in the world spends as much on the military as the US of A! Not even close. So, while China may gain economic superiority, we will remain the big kid on the block!!! Yippee, Ice Cream for Everyone!!!!

Wrong!

China is spending money on defence more than the U.S. The Chinese Army is approximately 300 million soldiers. Largest Armed Forces.

True!
The Tiananmen Square Crackdown was a success. It opened China widely to the world. Seeing the views of China, and that they should improve big time, which attracted attention to the U.S. Over the years, China has did what the U.S. wanted, but U.S. still wanted more, they wanted their land.

Speaking of which, isn't China a democracy now? I seem to remember them electing a new Prime Minister a few months ago.

There was an election involved with Saddam Hussein's coming to power...

Wrong!

China is spending money on defence more than the U.S. The Chinese Army is approximately 300 million soldiers. Largest Armed Forces.

True!
The Tiananmen Square Crackdown was a success. It opened China widely to the world. Seeing the views of China, and that they should improve big time, which attracted attention to the U.S. Over the years, China has did what the U.S. wanted, but U.S. still wanted more, they wanted their land.

any facts to back that up?

Everything I have read says China has about 3 million in its actual armed forces, plus a lot of militia, most of whom are either unarmed or armed only with small arms.

any facts to back that up?

Everything I have read says China has about 3 million in its actual armed forces, plus a lot of militia, most of whom are either unarmed or armed only with small arms.

I've heard the offcial army alone is at least 56 million. And even if it was only 3 million, that would still be about twice the size of the US armed forces.

2 to 1...depending on the technology discrepency, that wouldn't exactly be an easy fight for China.

I've heard the offcial army alone is at least 56 million. And even if it was only 3 million, that would still be about twice the size of the US armed forces.

your source then is seriously in error.....

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/pla-intro.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Armyhttp://www.sinodefence.com/army/
http://www.sinodefence.com/


active Peoples Liberation Army is 2.5 million plus about 1.5 million reserves of various types (most of which are essentially police forces)

the sources above also discuss Chinese military spending, its equipment and deployment and organization

The other day I was reading about China's power i couldn't believe that in five years time China would claim to be the world's greatest superpower.

There were some statistics that made me open my mouth in horror, evey second that passes a new chinese is born! Damn that is really weird, but then don't judge me as a racist fanatic ( i was banned because of my derrogative expressions ) i'm not against chinese, i'm against their dictatorship, that isn't communist anymore, that's a corrupt dictatorship and should be removed immediatly. China should be invaded and dismembered to ensure the safety of our western civilization!!!

Now let us supose my worst fears became true, what would happen if chinese really took the power?

Why do we have to see Chinese economic growth as a threat? Isn't is more of an investment opportunity?

If we continue to act aggressively toward a growing power, and even talk about going to war with them, then of course we are going to have a problem. Maybe we can beat them, maybe we can't. It seems to me like the best solution is to start to be more friendly with China. I would much rather have a powerful friend than a powerful enemy.

There are some moral issues with being friendly to a country that still abuses basic human rights, but the more friendly we become, the more likely it is that these abuses will be noticed, and then we might be in a position to put political pressure on China to make them stop. As Blahlandland said, Tiananmen Square was a success because it opened China widely to the world. The more widely China is opened, the more likely the abuses will stop.

active Peoples Liberation Army is 2.5 million plus about 1.5 million reserves of various types (most of which are essentially police forces)

I suppose my source was in error, but anyway that's still 4 million in one section of their army alone. The entire US military (army, airforce, navy and USMC) has less then two million in total, and about 2 thirds of those are reserves.

China has Numbers, America has Technology. And normally, the more advanced Race reigns supreme. We had completed the Stealth Fighter in the early 70s, who the fuck knows what we have now.

Countries, even our allies, are just begining to reach that point, And we still have the fastest plane on earth. We are nearly undefeatable.

I love these people who assume that just cause China has numbers, that somehow their armed forces are already better than the U.S.

China has a navy almost exclusively devoted to costal defense, and their main naval ports would be decimated by air-strikes and submarine launched cruise missiles before they could blink.

Follow that up with an extensive campaign of stealth airstrikes and sub-launched cruise missiles on Chinas coastal defense missile batteries. Eventually you can start moving carrier task forces closer to the coast and adding even more air-power to the coastal regions.

China's airforce, unlike their navy, is no pushover. The air-battle between the U.S. and China would be more costly for both sides, but because of the U.S. extensive experience with utilizing AWACS aircraft, I would place my wager on the U.S.

Of course...now we come to land forces. Moot point. China can't invade the U.S., and the U.S. can't invade China. Period.

You can also rant all you like about China's "300 million man army", but not only is such a claim false, it is ridiculous in the extreme.

It would cost an ASTRONOMICAL amount of money to train, equip, and field an army of that size. China would be destroying their own economy just to place a bunch of people in uniform. It would be massively counterproductive

Sure, if China instituted a full draft, they could concievably have an army of around 200 to 250 million...

...but half of them would be armed with spears! :eek:

Spears vs. Cluster Bombs....hmmm :p

I suppose my source was in error, but anyway that's still 4 million in one section of their army alone. The entire US military (army, airforce, navy and USMC) has less then two million in total, and about 2 thirds of those are reserves.

I posted this earlier in another thread but its directly relevent here

"The US has the capability of using nuclear weapons to absolutely destroy any other state on the planet as a civilized entity in extremis. Only Russia still has sufficient weapons to even threaten that, and it no longer can defend itself with conventional forces so must rely on that alone now. That is why the US is considered a Super Power. No other nuclear power even comes close to that very real ability.

For China to become a Superpower would require it to rise to the level of military power that the Soviet Union had in 1988. It would have to develop sufficient nuclear forces to seriously threaten the existance of the US (not just a half dozen cities), and develop sufficient conventional military forces so that it can compete with the US on an equal footing outside of China.

It took the Soviet Union from 1945 until about 1970 to reach that equality with the US, and it only retained that for about 20 years before collapsing economically because the US changed the rules of the game with the computer revolution.

So at this point, even if China started tomorrow to do what the Soviet Union did, it would most likely take them at least a couple of decades to become a Super Power as compared to the US.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429547&page=5

so basically the Chinese have a long way to go to become a superpower.

The US has fought the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army before. During the Korean War the US initially suffered some defeats and heavy losses but then drove the Chinese out of South Korea and established a defensive line which it held for the rest of the war, and PLA casualty estimates from that war exceed 1 Million. The US had only about 8 divisions on the line during most of the Korean War facing usually 30 -50 Chinese divisions, not counting the various other UN forces on our side and the NKPLA forces on the other side.

Numbers aren't everything. During the First Gulf War, the UN forces had only about a dozen divisions, and literally destroyed an Iraqi Army of about 45 divisions. The Second Gulf War saw 3 American and British divisions invade and essentially conquer Iraq in a month. Saddam still have several Republican Guard Divisions that actually fought (setting aside the numerous Regular Army divisions who decided to sit it out or go home instead). Although the fighting continues, most of the casualties are not be created by Saddam loyalists, but by factional fighting, outside terrorists, or various factions who were not afiliated with Saddam before the war or during it.

Israel beat the Arab States several ties outnumbered 3 to 1 in actual combat numbers and even more so in sheer population.

Most of those Chinese divisions would simply provide the US Army with greater numbers of targets in a conventional war.

Certainly the PLA is a more formidable foe than Arab forces have been, but they simply lack the training levels, equipment and technology to fight the US Army on an equal basis.

During World War II, with a population of about 100 million, the US mobilized nearly 95 combat Divisions (army and marines), plus a huge navy and air force. The US could do so again in a Total War situation. The simple fact is that China cannot even begin to arm and equip that number of mechanized or airborne divisions (figure about 200 American divisions at full mobilization after 2 years) as it simply doesn't have the economy large enough to do so. It could mobilize tens of millions of militia perhaps, equiped with small arms and other light weapons, but certainly not that kind of combat power.

I love these people who assume that just cause China has numbers, that somehow their armed forces are already better than the U.S.

China has a navy almost exclusively devoted to costal defense, and their main naval ports would be decimated by air-strikes and submarine launched cruise missiles before they could blink.

Follow that up with an extensive campaign of stealth airstrikes and sub-launched cruise missiles on Chinas coastal defense missile batteries. Eventually you can start moving carrier task forces closer to the coast and adding even more air-power to the coastal regions.

China's airforce, unlike their navy, is no pushover. The air-battle between the U.S. and China would be more costly for both sides, but because of the U.S. extensive experience with utilizing AWACS aircraft, I would place my wager on the U.S.

Of course...now we come to land forces. Moot point. China can't invade the U.S., and the U.S. can't invade China. Period.

You can also rant all you like about China's "300 million man army", but not only is such a claim false, it is ridiculous in the extreme.

It would cost an ASTRONOMICAL amount of money to train, equip, and field an army of that size. China would be destroying their own economy just to place a bunch of people in uniform. It would be counterproductive in the extreme.

Sure, if China instituted a full draft, they could concievably have an army of around 200 to 250 million...

...but half of them would be armed with spears! :eek:

Spears vs. Cluster Bombs....hmmm :pActually, Im not so worried about China's airforce. From my knowledge, there useing Russian Migs. We have proved time, after time, our Planes are VASTLY, Suppiorer too the Russian Mig. And there tanks? Same thing. And there troops are going to be mowed down, due to the fact where probally gonna use Napalm. So now, Fire up the Barby, im in the mood for Kung-Pow Chicken..

China's airforce, unlike their navy, is no pushover. The air-battle between the U.S. and China would be more costly for both sides, but because of the U.S. extensive experience with utilizing AWACS aircraft, I would place my wager on the U.S.

The US has no chace against the Chinese air force. America pilots and American fighters are horrible. Most of them haven't had any new tech. put in them for decades. I remember during the push into Afganistan pilots from other countries, such as Canada and Germany, were complaining that American fightersa aren't equiped to use laser guided or precision weapons, and were missing ground target by over 100 m in some cases. A standard concensus was that they were more of a liablility that an asset.

Actually, Im not so worried about China's airforce. From my knowledge, there useing Russian Migs.

Russian Sukhoi's actualy, which are said to be the best fighters ever made. For example, the Su-47: said to have a top spead of over Mach 2.8, I've seem videos of tests where it turns on dime, it holds about twice the weapons load of any fighter used by the USAF, it has an ECM generator which makes it completely invisable to radar.

The US has no chace against the Chinese air force. America pilots and American fighters are horrible. Most of them haven't had any new tech. put in them for decades. I remember during the push into Afganistan pilots from other countries, such as Canada and Germany, were complaining that American fightersa aren't equiped to use laser guided or precision weapons, and were missing ground target by over 100 m in some cases. A standard concensus was that they were more of a liablility that an asset.

did you actually read those links I posted earlier? They talk about the PLAAF, and its very clear the Chinese would be at a huge disadvantage.

but here are some new ones for you

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plaaf-mod.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/plaaf-equip.htm
http://www.softwar.net/plaaf.html

I suppose my source was in error, but anyway that's still 4 million in one section of their army alone. The entire US military (army, airforce, navy and USMC) has less then two million in total, and about 2 thirds of those are reserves.

I'm not sure were you are getting this information from, first you claim that China, a country of roughly 1.3 BILLION people has only around 50 mil total in its armed forces...that's kinda funny

Now, if I read your last post correctly, you are claiming the entire US military has less then 2 mil total?...HAHAHAHA! dude, heres an idea, check on something before you just start typing, try CIA world fact book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/) for starters, I'm not saying the CIA is totally honest and that those numbers are 100% right on the money, but I most certainly think they are closer then the random, insanely low numbers that your throwing out.

....do you realize that the city of Chicago, Illinois is 2.8 mil strong, so according to you that ONE city in that ONE state out of the fifty we have has more people living in it than our entire combined military.

The US has no chace against the Chinese air force. America pilots and American fighters are horrible.

No chance, huh? U.S. made fighters have consistently and soundly defeated their Soviet made equivalents in every conflict in which they faced each other, Israel being a prime example.

Most of them haven't had any new tech. put in them for decades.

We're building new planes all the time...why put new tech into old planes? We tend to sell older planes to allies.

I remember during the push into Afganistan pilots from other countries, such as Canada and Germany, were complaining that American fightersa aren't equiped to use laser guided or precision weapons, and were missing ground target by over 100 m in some cases. A standard concensus was that they were more of a liablility that an asset.

Regarding statements I have Bolded: Fighters do not attack ground targets, so your point really has no weight in an assessment of a China/U.S. air to air campaign.

Also, the U.S. air to air missile inventory is mainly radar guided...with some IR as well.

Regarding statements I have Italicized: Do you have a source for these statements?

I see no reasion why the Chinese people will ever totally surpass us in an economic war. Has anyone noticed how dependent China is to the our market places, if we placed an embargo on chinese goods, their economy would tank horridly.

I see no reasion why the Chinese people will ever totally surpass us in an economic war. Has anyone noticed how dependent China is to the our market places, if we placed an embargo on chinese goods, their economy would tank horridly.

umm... your economy would suffer more than considerably too. China is your 3rd largest trading partner, accounting for $231.4b in total two-way trade (year to Dec 2004, from census.gov). You can’t just take that amount of trade out of the economy and expect everything to be fine!

umm... your economy would suffer more than considerably too. China is your 3rd largest trading partner, accounting for $231.4b in total two-way trade (year to Dec 2004, from census.gov). You can’t just take that amount of trade out of the economy and expect everything to be fine!

thats true, it would hurt us in the short run... however, China runs a very high balance of trade imbalance with the US (in other words, a lot more of our money goes to them compared to how much of their money we get back)

There are plenty of countries who would cheerfully fill the gap of goods that China sends to the US (nearly all of which are consumer goods). Within a decade at most, the US market would have lots of other suppliers.